Are there guidelines on the limits to charm person?

[huttj509]

Context: Curse of Strahd book and DC 17 wisdom saves being failed causing combat to shut down whenever Strahd shows up (even if he's jsut observing us fighting a 3rd party...well, and sucking our blood).

I just...I want to write a long post explaining what I'm looking for, but i'm having trouble finding the words...

Just, is there a good resource for what Charm Person does and does not actually do?

[Greeniron]

charmed is an actual condition in the Players handbook, and it is pretty much advantage on all charisma checks and something else, I do not remember off the top of my head. It does not make you obey them or anything similar.

[SharkForce]

charmed is an actual condition in the Players handbook, and it is pretty much advantage on all charisma checks and something else, I do not remember off the top of my head. It does not make you obey them or anything similar.

the other thing is that the charmed individual cannot attack the charming individual.

that said, vampire charm does a bit more than just inflict the charmed condition. or at least, normal vampire charm does, and i'd be pretty disappointed if strahd had a worse version, being the archetypical vampire after all (i wouldn't know if he does, because i don't own CoS).

i'm not 100% sure, but iirc vampire charm mentions something along the lines of the charmed individual treating the vampire like a friend, and seeing everything they say in the most positive light. that said, if a friend told you that you should not defend yourself against a bear that was trying to kill you and you had an elephant gun, you'd still probably try and shoot the bear. just because your friend says something doesn't mean you're going to do it, even if they are really good at persuading you to do things; they might get you to take a stupid dare, but there's no chance you're going to let a bear rip your throat out.

anyways, if you have reason to expect him to interfere in advance, you may find that the protection from evil spell is quite useful.

[Ashrym]

The charmed person is treated as a friendly acquaintance, which matters on the DC chart for favors and sometimes overlooked. Charm person does enable moderate risk favors from hostile NPC's if they fit within the duration of the spell, whereas the skill (even with advantage) will only allow for small risk favors from neutral NPC's or no risk favors from hostile NPC's.

The charmed person treating the caster as friendly is more useful than the advantage on the check.

The check is made with advantage as a CHA check and DC 10 for friendly is a minor risk or sacrifice while DC 20 is a moderate risk or sacrifice. That's a bit subjective on what would be a minor, moderate, or major risk but it is pretty clear that something that can be considered more than a moderate risk would be off limits and charmed individuals can request. I tell players, "think about what you might risk for a hottie (when the consequences might be important and assuming you are responsible) you like and start ball parking from there". What one might be reasonably or realistically be talked into in such a circumstance fits under that.

This is vampire charm instead of the charm person spell.


The charmed target regards the vampire as a trusted friend to be heeded and protected. Although the target isn't under the vampire's control, it takes the vampire's requests or actions in the most favorable way it can, and it is a willing target for the vampire's bite attack.

This is the charmed condition.



A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.


The general idea is what your close and trusted friends might talk you into so keeping that in mind, it's easily for a DM or player to role-play the restrictions out of what might be too extreme.

[SharkForce]

note that the spell doesn't say the target becomes friendly as defined in the DMG for social interaction purposes, merely that they become like a friendly acquaintance... which could mean they're like the shopkeeper you know the name of, or your neighbour. you'd probably mow their lawn and check their mail while they're on vacation for a week, but you're not gonna help them commit a crime or take a bullet for them unless you'd do that for most anyone. obviously, that's still much better than hostile, i'm just pointing out that it isn't necessarily all the way to being actively helpful.

[ShadoUrufu]

the other thing is that the charmed individual cannot attack the charming individual.

that said, vampire charm does a bit more than just inflict the charmed condition. or at least, normal vampire charm does, and i'd be pretty disappointed if strahd had a worse version, being the archetypical vampire after all (i wouldn't know if he does, because i don't own CoS).

i'm not 100% sure, but iirc vampire charm mentions something along the lines of the charmed individual treating the vampire like a friend, and seeing everything they say in the most positive light. that said, if a friend told you that you should not defend yourself against a bear that was trying to kill you and you had an elephant gun, you'd still probably try and shoot the bear. just because your friend says something doesn't mean you're going to do it, even if they are really good at persuading you to do things; they might get you to take a stupid dare, but there's no chance you're going to let a bear rip your throat out.

anyways, if you have reason to expect him to interfere in advance, you may find that the protection from evil spell is quite useful.

Just answering to posts as I see them but:
'Persuasion' here being the crux of the issue. It's very vaguely defined, in terms of DnD, roleplay is almost never a factor, as most just say what they want to get out of the argument, and then roll for it, and any who fail are expected to fall in line and do as they were told.

Without roleplay, without context, the only possible answers are: 'Yes, you do this' and 'No, you don't do this' which often leads to players feeling like they are loosing their agency [aka, mind controlled] because if the bonus is high enough, even if someone as powerful as Strad rolls a nat 1, you could still be forced to do something that doesn't fall into how your character would behave.

P.S: As an anecdote, to illustrate my point, a player wanted an item that my character took. (In the context of things, that character had previously raided/took everything on the ship that my character was found in, and I was given none of it, so this was my first real 'new item' of the campaign.)
Played a warforged that this player previously convinced to follow their character. No problems there, and I specified that I 'may be more lenient to listen to things, if given a reasonable explanation' and in no way was implying anything more than 'I'll consider what you said to see if I would have a reason to say no.

Anyway, they did their roll, no roleplay or explanation just an order 'give me that item' With the GM stacking the 'encounter' against me. Given the context, there was no way my character was going to follow what was just a blatant order, and yet this player hat the galls to try and call this 'roleplay' despite it just being a flat dice check.
(I refused, and yes, it caused issues, and I later left the game. But it just goes to show that I was, effectively, under the effects of 'charmed' and that I was expected to 'follow the order' given to me, with no reasonable way to try and argue against it, or to explain why my character wanted to keep this item.)
P.S: The item wouldn't have ended up working as I was wanting it to, after discussing it with the DM and things had calmed down, and I would have gladly given it to the player at that time. But, that interaction soured my mood, and I would have instead chosen to destroy the item if they tried to get it from me again.

(I know I went a bit off-topic, but I really felt like it was important to illustrate the issue.)

Edit: When it comes to PC vs NPC, a simple hand-waving accompanied with the question of 'what are you trying to make them do' can be satisfactory. The question being to try and get a bit more context out of the situation.

However, with PC vs PC, roleplay should always come before dices.

[ShadoUrufu]

I tell players, "think about what you might risk for a hottie (when the consequences might be important and assuming you are responsible) you like and start ball parking from there". What one might be reasonably or realistically be talked into in such a circumstance fits under that.

This can be a cause of issue, because that line of thinking is very player-subjective. Lets say the player's been burned in a relationship before, the answer might just be: Nothing. I'm not willing to risk anything, due to past experiences.

But most GM expect 'something' to happen. And I really think that, to help break the stigma that most have against the charmed effect, GM's need to accept that 'nothing' is a valid answer.
"I'm just going to waste my turn and take non-hostile actions, because I'm not willing to hurt my allies, and I can't narratively hurt my 'new friend' either"

[Blatant Beast]

note that the spell doesn't say the target becomes friendly as defined in the DMG for social interaction purposes, merely that they become like a friendly acquaintance...

Several statements like this have been made in this thread.
A vampire's charm ability states:
"The charmed target regards the vampire as a trusted friend to be heeded and protected. Although the target isn’t under the vampire’s control, it takes the vampire’s requests or actions in the most favorable way it can, and it is a willing target for the vampire’s bite attack."

I have underlined parts of the text that refute the notion that a charmed subject of a vampire merely considers the vampire to be a friendly shopkeeper.

The charmed subject considers the vampire a trusted friend, to be heeded and protected, per the text. The Charmed subject will also heed the vampire's requests in "the most favorable way they can".

If a Shopkeep is being used as the standard of a friendly creature, and per the DMG, asking a friendly creature to accept a large risk or make a personal sacrifice is a DC 20 ability check.......then I think it is a safe presumption to assume that taking a large risk, or making a large personal sacrifice for a "trusted friend, to be heeded and protected" is going to have a lower Ability Check DC.

A DC 10 or 15 Ability Check strikes me as reasonable.

A DM does not have to accept that a player will do nothing. Roleplaying shares aspects with improv; it is expected that a player receiving a new prompt will respond with "Yes, and..."

Which is why I have a house rule for what I term "Disenchantment" which is the opposite of the mechanic Inspiration. If a player refuses to roleplay, their checks will have Disadvantage, until they start.

[KorvinStarmast]

Which is why I have a house rule for what I term "Disenchantment" which is the opposite of the mechanic Inspiration. If a player refuses to roleplay, their checks will have Disadvantage, until they start. Not a bad tool, but hopefully only needed to be used on occasion. Good points on the vampire charm being more robust.

Charmed Condition:

A charmed creature can't attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects.
The charmer has advantage on any ability check to interact socially with the creature.


Which makes the charmed one more susceptible to Intimidation, Deception, and Persuasion as a bare minimum. But those failed checks still require role play: ability checks themselves are not magic.


We had someone quit our CoS campaign due to complaints of "lack of agency" ... which is kinda the whole vampire schtick in the first place.

[Blatant Beast]

Not a bad tool, but hopefully only needed to be used on occasion. Good points on the vampire charm being more robust.

I have actually never needed to use it.


We had someone quit our CoS campaign due to complaints of "lack of agency" ... which is kinda the whole vampire schtick in the first place.

Yeah. I can understand their point though. The "fun" in Ravenloft comes from embracing how much of a rat bastard Strahd is, and trying to make adjustments that thwart his mindgames.

Some people do not want to have to consider buddy system bathroom breaks as part of their D&D game, but you have to in a Curse of Strahd game, because Strahd will absolutely Charm someone taking a wee out in the woods, to cause mischief later.

[Slipjig]

Why is Strahd interfering in the party fighting a 3rd party? Even if it's a Strahd minion, he'll probably just enjoy the show. He only "shuts down combat" if you choose to have him do so.

[Blatant Beast]

Strahd, showing up unannounced, and revealing that he has active charms in place with participants on both sides of the combat, and then literally acting as a conductor, by orchestrating whom his charmed targets attack, seems like the sort of eggplant emoji stuff, Strahd should do.

One of my favorite scenes is from the TV adaptation of Legion, in which three of the most powerful psionic characters on the show, demonstrate their animosity towards each other not through a deadly fight, but through having a Psionically powered Charmed Synchronized Dance Off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ja5ehgpCA

Even uber-powerful people, want to let their hair down and F-around sometimes.

[kingcheesepants]

As others have noted the vampire charm ability is a lot stronger than the charm person spell. Actually it's stronger enough that from what you said it sounds like your DM is being a bit easy on you by not taking full advantage of it. But in any case there are a few things that you can do to protect yourself.

Protection from evil and good, A first level spell which Clerics, Paladins, Warlocks, and Wizards, can pick up and it makes one target immune to charm and fear as well as giving undead disadvantage on attacks against them. Big negative is that it's only a single target and concentration so unless everyone is a caster this will only cover a small portion of the team. As an aside I really wish that this spell in particular could be upcast to cover more targets, making yourself immune to charm might be worth concentration but making the whole team immune definitely is.

Calm Emotions, a second level spell that will suppress a charm for the duration. This one is also concentration and also the charm comes back when the spell ends. But at least it'll be off for the fight.

Remove Curse/Dispel Magic, these are both debatable as to whether or not they work so talk to your DM beforehand to see how he would rule on it. But if he allows it to work it could potentially erase the charm effect.

Greater Restoration, erases the charm and unambiguously works but as a 5th level spell with expensive material components this is almost certainly out of reach for a curse of strahd game.

Be unseen. Whether by turning yourself invisible, using a spell like Fogcloud, Darkness, Sleet Storm or similar, or just going around a corner out of sight. Vampires can only charm those that they can see and they don't have true sight or blind sight. So take advantage of that and fight him in thick fog or whatever.

Have a level 7+ devotion paladin in the party. They get an aura that hard counters charms, so that'll also do it.

Be a non humanoid. If you pick a Plasmoid, Autognome, Pixie, or other non humanoid race you'll be immune to vampire charm.

[Blatant Beast]

Be unseen. .

Good list. Technically, you do not have to be unseen, you can also just close your eyes. A vampire's charm ability requires the target to be able to see the vampire, as well as the vampire seeing the target.

Fair warning, the tactic will hurt, but the pain is probably better than being charmed.