Charm Person in 5E

[Mooseontheloose]

The description for Charm Person in 5E seems rather vague (even more so than Pathfinder) and I'm wondering how much influence you would allow the caster to have over its victim.
It basically just says that: "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance"

1. Is this mostly just a social/out of combat spell now or does it have combat use as well?

2. Can you make the victim attack his allies?

3. Can you make the victim attack someone he doesn't know?

4. If you gave the target a vial of poison and said it was a healing potion, could you make him drink it?

5. Could you make him just walk away from a combat while you're in the middle of killing his allies?

6. Would you require a Persuasion/Deception roll every time you asked him to do something?

I realise this is very dependent on the DM, but I'd like to hear you views and ideas on what can be done within the limits of the spell

[Tanarii]

The DCs for Charisma Checks in Social Interaction in 5e are on DMG p246. For example, persuading a friendly creature to accept significant risk to do as asked is a DC 20 check. (Edit: if there are no risks or sacrifices, it's DC 0, so automatic unless you have a penalty to your check.)

Moving a hostile creature to a friendly creature is effectively a +20 bonus. An indifferent one to a friendly creature is effectively a +10 bonus. You also get Adv on your checks on top of that from the charm status. That means Charm Person is very powerful if used right.

[Knaight]

The description for Charm Person in 5E seems rather vague (even more so than Pathfinder) and I'm wondering how much influence you would allow the caster to have over its victim.
It basically just says that: "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance"

1. Is this mostly just a social/out of combat spell now or does it have combat use as well?

2. Can you make the victim attack his allies?

3. Can you make the victim attack someone he doesn't know?

4. If you gave the target a vial of poison and said it was a healing potion, could you make him drink it?

5. Could you make him just walk away from a combat while you're in the middle of killing his allies?

6. Would you require a Persuasion/Deception roll every time you asked him to do something?

I realise this is very dependent on the DM, but I'd like to hear you views and ideas on what can be done within the limits of the spell

The key thing is that the charmed condition only makes one a friendly acquaintance - it can no longer be used to deliver orders. So, going down the list.

1. It has combat use.

2. Only if the victim would attack an ally because a friendly acquaintance told them to. So, probably not.

3. Only if the victim would attack a stranger because a friendly acquaintance told them to. Odds are not bad here.

4. Presumably they'd drink it if injured, yes.

5. It depends on the allies. Getting them to try and stop the combat is much more likely.

6. I'd require it every time I would of any other friendly acquaintance.

[BW022]

Charms are heavily dependant on the DM. However, the key is "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance".

When in doubt, ask yourself "What would you do if a good neighbor asked you in such as case?"



1. Is this mostly just a social/out of combat spell now or does it have combat use as well?


Probably out of combat. If your neighbor and his friends came over and started shooting at you... Is there anything your neighbor could say to get you to listen to him while bullets are flying?



2. Can you make the victim attack his allies?


If your good neighbor approached you outside with some of your friends ... is there anything your neighbor could say to get you to stab your friends? Coworkers? Strangers? Maybe he could say something to get you to doubt these people ... especially if they had proof that your friends stole from you or a coworker was trying to get your fired. Otherwise... probably not.



3. Can you make the victim attack someone he doesn't know?


As above. Could your neighbor say anything to you to get you to attack a random person?



4. If you gave the target a vial of poison and said it was a healing potion, could you make him drink it?


Could your neighbor get you to take some medicine if you were sick? Maybe. Depends on how sick you are and why your neighbor just happened to come over with some medicine. With a good set-up story or you being really injured... probably.



5. Could you make him just walk away from a combat while you're in the middle of killing his allies?


Would you walk away from some friends if you neighbor and his friends were stabbing them? Probably not... unless you were wanting to run away or call the police anyway.



6. Would you require a Persuasion/Deception roll every time you asked him to do something?


In most of the above cases, the person is going to react as you would. If he and his friends were shooting at you... you aren't likely to listen to him. If he wanted you to kill some strangers... you might listen to him and then want to get away from him or call the police. I would only require a persuasion if it was borderline or part of some other "reasonable reason". I would only require deception checks if it was either likely that you were lying, but not otherwise insanely stupid.

I'll caveat these with that you might react slightly differently if neutral, evil, in a stressful/dangerous environment, and/or if you lack certain morals. If you were an assassin, a good neighbor might be better able to convince you to attack someone for money. If you were an ogre, a good neighbor might be able to convince you that your goblin friends has a plan to murder you in your sleep. However, even these would likely require some questions (possibly deception rolls if you are lying), possibly proof, and it might not result in the creature outright attacking -- they might confront, question, investigate, look for proof, etc.

[Asmotherion]

1. Is this mostly just a social/out of combat spell now or does it have combat use as well?
It is stronger as a social spell, but definitelly can be used in combat. Preferably before combat starts/on your first turn.

2. Can you make the victim attack his allies?
I would rule "maybe" depending on a lot of things. If it's a slave we're targeting, who is fighting you only because his slaver told him to, he will be more than willing. Ultimately, the best was to aproach this is not as a brainwashed target, but as if it was an NPC you were friendly with before, and suddently you see him in the oponent's ranks. As he is friendly towards you, you have a better chance to have him persuade his party that "you're cool, no need to worry". That's why I suggest targeting the higher ups. In case they turn on him, there is a good chance he'll get mad at them, and join your party to fight against them.

3. Can you make the victim attack someone he doesn't know?
Is the target prone to violance? If we're talking about a peasent here, it's unlikely, unless you deceive them to do so, or there is a good reason for it. On the other hand, if we're talking about a bandit, he'll be more than willing to act acording to what you say.

4. If you gave the target a vial of poison and said it was a healing potion, could you make him drink it?
Yes, if he needed it. You'd still need to make a deception check, but with advantage and probably with a low DC. You are saying a blunt lie after all. The DC might get a bit higher if the target is in full health, and I would make it include a persuation check as well (one deception that it's a healing potion, and one persuation to drink it). The persuation would be mid to high dificult.

5. Could you make him just walk away from a combat while you're in the middle of killing his allies?
Once again, depends. All the charmed condition does is A) Preven him from attacking you, the charmer, and B) You to have advantage with all charisma-related checks on the target. If you can find an elaborate reason why he should run, and roll high at your Persuation or Deception check, then by all means he should run faster than the wind. Keep in mind that you still need to convince him that your allies are cool as well, nothing prevents him from attacking them, just you.

6. Would you require a Persuasion/Deception roll every time you asked him to do something?
Yes. At leat as long as it's something important. I would not have players roll if you asked him to pur some tea, or to hold your bag for a moment. But if it's something he might have an objection to do, I'd have them roll.

[Tanarii]

The key thing is that the charmed condition only makes one a friendly acquaintance - it can no longer be used to deliver orders.Technically it's the spell Charm Person that makes the creature regard you as a friendly acquaintance. But the charmed condition gives you advantage on Charisma checks vs the charmed creature, so it absolutely allows you to 'deliver orders'. Of course, trying to 'order' a charmed friendly creature around is the same DC as trying to order an uncharmed friendly creature. That's going to be DM dependent, but certainly I wouldn't make that an easy check.

(Edit: I may not be clear here. My second point is you do get an ongoing bonus to 'delivering orders' if that's what you want to try to do ... in the form of advantage on what may be a quite difficult check to make.)


Charms are heavily dependant on the DM. However, the key is "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance".

When in doubt, ask yourself "What would you do if a good neighbor asked you in such as case?"I second this. Despite my earlier post and my comment above to Knaight, I'm not trying to suggest it's just about checks here. DMs should use their judgement on if a check is necessary, what kind of check it is, and what the DC is, within the normal guidelines. Social Interaction / Charisma checks are just a bit more defined (in the DMG) for how to handle social interaction:
starting attitude (in this case shifted to friendly)
in-character conversation first;
DM determines any checks needed from that as usual using his judgement;
a table for sample DCs of charisma checks based on starting attitude and what the risk/sacrafice would be required by the creature

Really there's no major difference between that process and adjudicating ANY action. And Charm Person doesn't make it any different, it just shifts the attitude and gives advantage on the check.

[IShouldntBehere]

The description for Charm Person in 5E seems rather vague (even more so than Pathfinder) and I'm wondering how much influence you would allow the caster to have over its victim.
It basically just says that: "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance"

1. Is this mostly just a social/out of combat spell now or does it have combat use as well?

2. Can you make the victim attack his allies?

3. Can you make the victim attack someone he doesn't know?

4. If you gave the target a vial of poison and said it was a healing potion, could you make him drink it?

5. Could you make him just walk away from a combat while you're in the middle of killing his allies?

6. Would you require a Persuasion/Deception roll every time you asked him to do something?

I realise this is very dependent on the DM, but I'd like to hear you views and ideas on what can be done within the limits of the spell

1: Primarly Social
2: No
3: No, Unless they're particularly violent and are basically just itching for a fight in the first place.
4. Depends on the person and context. If you just randomly give it to them with no context, you'd probably need the standard social checks to convince them. If they're injured and in need of healing they'll likely take you at face value. If they're super suspect type they might still require deceiving. You're just a friendly acquaintance not wholly-trusted-best-friend-from childhood. They'll take you at the same level of value they'd take anyone they kind of casual know and feel mostly good about i.
5. No.
6. Depends what you ask. "Hey bro, wanna go get some pizza" - no check. "Hey bro, mind doing me a risky favor" - requires a check, but an easier one than a non-charmed party. "Hey bro, swim in lava" - impossible.

It does what it does. It makes them think that you're somebody who is mostly OK by them. How someone treats a person like that varies by the situation and invidual. In almost no cases does it make them willing to kill for you, risk their lives for you, and generally not down strange vials of liquid on flimsy pretext.

If you want to know what the spell does, think about the people you work (or go to school with). Think about that guy you interact with there about 2-3 times a week, who seems like a cool kind of guy but you've only ever hung out once or twice. You're facebook friends but you don't have his phone number, that sort of thing. Charmed NPCs are willing to go as far for a PC as you are for that guy. Which is a great deal more than a total stranger I'd imagine but nothing particularly taxing or dangerous.

[Knaight]

3: No, Unless they're particularly violent and are basically just itching for a fight in the first place.

While this is true, given that the context being asked about is for targeting someone in an enemy warband...well, lets just say selection bias is a thing. The target is liable to be a raider or similar in the first place, particularly violent and itching for a fight is disproportionately likely.

[IShouldntBehere]

While this is true, given that the context being asked about is for targeting someone in an enemy warband...well, lets just say selection bias is a thing. The target is liable to be a raider or similar in the first place, particularly violent and itching for a fight is disproportionately likely.

Perhaps. This may be a setting thing. As I typically run things depending where you are the ladder your average enemy ruffian is as likely just to be a poor kid with no better options than anyone else. The folks who typically go into literal highway robbery are as likely to want to avoid fights as anyone else (hence sticking to the kind of poorly defended targets that tend to turn to PCs in desperation). It's less that your average bandit is a particularly violent fellow, just that violence beats alternatives like starvation and near starvation and piss-poor working conditions.

I mean Krombopulous Michael (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDr9axb7X7E) would probably be pretty willing to go in a full-on rampage at the mere suggestion of an acquaintance. Your average enemy mook though? I feel like you'd really have to have a convincing argument that the target is a worthwhile and easy mark, while he's actively in the mood to deal with the trouble.

[Knaight]

Perhaps. This may be a setting thing. As I typically run things depending where you are the ladder your average enemy ruffian is as likely just to be a poor kid with no better options than anyone else. The folks who typically go into literal highway robbery are as likely to want to avoid fights as anyone else (hence sticking to the kind of poorly defended targets that tend to turn to PCs in desperation). It's less that your average bandit is a particularly violent fellow, just that violence beats alternatives like starvation and near starvation and piss-poor working conditions.

True. On the other hand, the specific ruffians we're talking about are often ones that either thought it was a good idea to target a straight up small warband or decided to stick around when a small warband targeted them, so there's still some selection bias there. There's definitely room for desperation though, so it's far from a sure case. Better odds than picking some random peasant? Definitely.

[SharkForce]

The DCs for Charisma Checks in Social Interaction in 5e are on DMG p246. For example, persuading a friendly creature to accept significant risk to do as asked is a DC 20 check. (Edit: if there are no risks or sacrifices, it's DC 0, so automatic unless you have a penalty to your check.)

Moving a hostile creature to a friendly creature is effectively a +20 bonus. An indifferent one to a friendly creature is effectively a +10 bonus. You also get Adv on your checks on top of that from the charm status. That means Charm Person is very powerful if used right.

possibly.

depends on whether you read that as an acquaintance that is classified as friendly, or if you consider "friendly acquaintance" to be what they're like, as the "friendly neighbour" examples above. which is probably closer to indifferent.

still, even indifferent is better than hostile.

[Tanarii]

depends on whether you read that as an acquaintance that is classified as friendly, or if you consider "friendly acquaintance" to be what they're like, as the "friendly neighbour" examples above. which is probably closer to indifferent.lol, wut? Are you serious, or just jerking my chain? Because that's ridiculous. A friendly acquaintance is friendly, it says it right there in the name.

[Knaight]

lol, wut? Are you serious, or just jerking my chain? Because that's ridiculous. A friendly acquaintance is friendly, it says it right there in the name.

The linguistics here aren't quite as clear cut as that. The term "friendly" can be used to either mean "generally on good terms with" or "displaying properties of an actual friendship", and it could be used in different ways in different contexts. I'd similarly assume that it isn't, but the term friendly acquaintance can easily be used to just describe an acquaintance you don't actually dislike who doesn't actually dislike you.

[SharkForce]

lol, wut? Are you serious, or just jerking my chain? Because that's ridiculous. A friendly acquaintance is friendly, it says it right there in the name.

again, it depends if it means friendly in the same way the DMG text is talking about (actively wanting to help you) vs friendly in plain speech (which can range anywhere from "they're trying to be reasonably pleasant to be around" to "would help you bury a body"). given that it's referring to a friendly acquaintance, if it is talking in plain speech it is unlikely to mean much more than the former; a cashier at a grocery store that you see from time to time and make small talk with while (s)he is scanning the stuff you bought is a friendly acquaintance.

in 3.x, i would generally presume "game language" by default because that system generally tried to be very lawyer-y. in 5e, it could be intended as "game language" or "plain speech", because both are used regularly.

[SilverStud]

There is one incredibly important thing to note about Charm Person: when it's all over, the target knows you charmed it. They know. Sure, for that hour you've got an ally. But when the duration ends, they know you've manipulated them with magic. I see this as a strong argument for more short-term uses of this spell, since I know that I, personally, would be EXTREMELY likely to actively dislike the caster after the spell ends. Great for getting yourself past the castle guards, not so great for brokering trade deals with tribal leaders.

[Tanarii]

You guys are making me very very sad. You're seeing "friendly" without any special connotation in two different places, and intentionally choosing to try and make them mean different things.

[BW022]

...
Really there's no major difference between that process and adjudicating ANY action. And Charm Person doesn't make it any different, it just shifts the attitude and gives advantage on the check.

I wouldn't say that. It certainly affects one's initial reaction -- without anything being said. It may allow checks which one wouldn't otherwise get a chance to make.

For example, if you are a guard at a bank, you aren't going to allow an armed person to come up to you. You aren't going to listen to them. They won't get a chance to say much before you draw your weapon and order them to drop the weapon. However... if a good friend comes into the bank armed... you might listen long enough for them to even or let them get somewhat closer to you. They might not immediately draw, might allow you to get closer, and they would likely at least listen to you -- or ask what you are doing. I.e. you would likely get a chance to say that you are an undercover police officer and there was a shooting outside. That might lead to questions, deception checks, etc. However, without the charm person, he'd think you were a stranger... his actions are pretty much to draw his weapon and tell you to drop yours.

There is a difference between actions of a friend and those of someone else. There is a basic level of trust and your treat them differently than anyone else.

[Thrudd]

Charm person works best when you've got an individual target, alone. The troll guarding the bridge, charm it and he's your friend. You then have a good chance of convincing it to let you and your friends go on past. Or asking it to carry your stuff over the river for you. Then smile, give him some food and cheerfully wave goodbye, and be long gone before the spell wears off.

It is not and never should have been interpretted as a spell that let you give commands, that's too powerful for level 1. Suggestion is a level 3 spell, that's where you can give a command against the target's will.

[Tanarii]

I wouldn't say that. It certainly affects one's initial reaction -- without anything being said. It may allow checks which one wouldn't otherwise get a chance to make.:smallconfused: that's exactly what I just said. What you're describing is part of adjudicating the action.

[SharkForce]

You guys are making me very very sad. You're seeing "friendly" without any special connotation in two different places, and intentionally choosing to try and make them mean different things.

we're seeing "friendly" and "friendly acquaintance" as not necessarily being the same thing. they might be. if the PHB and DMG had been released at the same time, rather than the former coming out months before the latter with no rule to reference, i might be more inclined to assume they meant the same thing. if there was a page reference, i might be inclined to think they were the same thing. if there was an example of "friendly" creatures that included someone under the influence of a charm person spell, or if there was a page reference linking the two, i would be very strongly convinced that they were intended to mean the same thing.

instead, we have the spell saying the target sees you as a friendly acquaintance. which, to me, does not mean they're actively interested in helping you reach your goals. it means they'll be polite and pleasant, certainly. doesn't suggest they're going to go out of their way to help you.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I mean Krombopulous Michael (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDr9axb7X7E) would probably be pretty willing to go in a full-on rampage at the mere suggestion of an acquaintance. Your average enemy mook though? I feel like you'd really have to have a convincing argument that the target is a worthwhile and easy mark, while he's actively in the mood to deal with the trouble.

Actually Krombopulous Michael is a good counterpoint to the people saying you couldn't get someone to turn on their allies with just Charm Person. You could, but only if they're a deranged maniac or have serious issues with their nominal allies.

So, for example, Charmed Demons can probably be convinced to violently betray whoever they're working with unless they're extremely afraid of that person.

[IShouldntBehere]

Actually Krombopulous Michael is a good counterpoint to the people saying you couldn't get someone to turn on their allies with just Charm Person. You could, but only if they're a deranged maniac or have serious issues with their nominal allies.

So, for example, Charmed Demons can probably be convinced to violently betray whoever they're working with unless they're extremely afraid of that person.

Well if you'd asked me if Charm could get people to self-immolate I'd probably have given an unqualified "No" as well. That theoretically some person may exist whose favourite thing is being set on fire and they do it every opportunity they can, is a super odd exception that doesn't really disprove the rule. Krombopulous Michael is literally a cartoon joke of an over-the-top killer, you're not going to run into him much at all. If anything I was just kind of using him as an absurd example of what you'd need a person to be like to actually get them to be charmed into random violence, as a way to underscore it's really not the sort of thing charm does in 99.999% of situations.

Honestly if you're dealing with any creature with a mindset even vaguely resembling a human one, charm just is not a great tool for pushing someone into combat. Certainly this applies to all the PC races. Even the likes of Orcs & Gnolls probably at least have some level of rational risk assessment & motivational limitations to not turn into attack dogs for someone they know in passing.

As for a Demon: If they're willing to kill their current allies at a mere suggestion, they're probably equally willing to kill you (the charmer) as well given just how little they care about allies. If ruling charmed demons do kill, you might wind up with little more than a coin toss at which set of allies they betray and kill. I mean we've established betraying and killing allies is something they'll do at a drop of a hat and so charm is putting you in no special category with regards to avoiding or influencing their attacks.

[ad_hoc]

Charm Person only works on humanoids.

[SharkForce]

As for a Demon: If they're willing to kill their current allies at a mere suggestion, they're probably equally willing to kill you (the charmer) as well given just how little they care about allies. If ruling charmed demons do kill, you might wind up with little more than a coin toss at which set of allies they betray and kill. I mean we've established betraying and killing allies is something they'll do at a drop of a hat and so charm is putting you in no special category with regards to avoiding or influencing their attacks.

well, not quite.

charm prevents them from attacking you personally. the status effect i mean, not the spell in particular.

so the demon could certainly start killing your friends, but it wouldn't be able to kill you ;)

[Millstone85]

If they're willing to kill their current allies at a mere suggestion, they're probably equally willing to kill you (the charmer) as well given just how little they care about allies.
charm prevents them from attacking you personally. the status effect i mean, not the spell in particular.I think a very very important question is whether the charmed creature's inability to harm the charmer comes from...

A) The charmed creature being unable to command their body into harming the charmer, despite how much they still want to. In fact, they probably want it more than ever with what you did to them.

... or...

B) The charmed creature having lost the will to harm the charmer. They now see the charmer as someone they would never desire or dare to harm. They may or may not be aware of their condition.

Option B is way more powerful and, in my opinion, meaningful. It goes well with the advantage of the charmer on all social checks with the charmed creature, largely useless and contradictory if the charmed creature can still be hostile.

[Mith]

I would say B) also works well for the fact that the Charmed individual knows what has happened to them when the Charm wears off.

[Tanarii]

I think a very very important question is whether the charmed creature's inability to harm the charmer comes from...

A) The charmed creature being unable to command their body into harming the charmer, despite how much they still want to. In fact, they probably want it more than ever with what you did to them.

... or...

B) The charmed creature having lost the will to harm the charmer. They now see the charmer as someone they would never desire or dare to harm. They may or may not be aware of their condition.I think it depends on the spell being used, because many of them have effects on top of the charmed condition. The condition itself seems to be flexible, so it can be used with multiple effects and spells ... but also so it can be ruled & especially fluffed to fit as needed by the DM. Which makes perfect sense, especially within the design goals of 5e.

For example, someone hit by Dominate Person could easily be A, whereas someone hit by Charm Person is more likely B.

[Millstone85]

I would say B) also works well for the fact that the Charmed individual knows what has happened to them when the Charm wears off.If you think the implication is that they wouldn't know during the spell's duration, yes.


I think it depends on the spell being used, because many of them have effects on top of the charmed condition. The condition itself seems to be flexible, so it can be used with multiple effects and spells ... but also so it can be ruled & especially fluffed to fit as needed by the DM. Which makes perfect sense, especially within the design goals of 5e.

For example, someone hit by Dominate Person could easily be A, whereas someone hit by Charm Person is more likely B.And that's what makes Create Thrall so DM-dependent. As a 14th level feature, you get the nearly bare-bones charmed condition. Close to worthless with A but quite interesting with B.

[Tanarii]

And that's what makes Create Thrall so DM-dependent. As a 14th level feature, you get the nearly bare-bones charmed condition. Close to worthless with A but quite interesting with B.Yup.

Personally, I don't think either A or B applies to Create Thrall. You're not taking over their mind and body, unlike Dominate Person. You're just making them more susceptible to your personality, and making it so they can't attack you. It's a very subtle effect, despite the name.

Of course, if they're already hostile to you, it doesn't do very much good unless you've got a *very* strong personality ... which a Warlock already does. But even then, a Cha 20 warlock without proficiency is only going to persuade his originally hostile Thrall to do as asked (as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved) 42% of the time ... and "no risks or sacrifices" requests are the best he can go for. Certainly in a political game being able to make the evil vizier who opposes you at every turn decide to back off 42% of the time is pretty sweet. (Edit: how you turned him into a thrall in the first place is a totally different matter.)

[Millstone85]

Personally, I don't think either A or B applies to Create Thrall.
You're just making them more susceptible to your personality, and making it so they can't attack you.But why can't they attack you? If it is neither A nor B, then I don't know what C is.

I am suspicious that we might be in too gamist a mindset here.
- Tag, you are charmed! Can't target me with anything harmful!
- Oh, no! Does including you in a fireball area count as targeting?

How does it feel from the character's perspective? Maybe it depends on the character. One would suddenly find you oh so very sympathetic (B). Another would develop crippling doubts about their ability to do anything to you (B). Or it might be like their train of thought just stops on its tracks whenever it would go toward attacking you (still B). Or it might be like an invisible force is stopping them (A).

[Tanarii]

But why can't they attack you? If it is neither A nor B, then I don't know what C is.
C) you influence their mind so they sub-conciously come up with justify why they're choosing not to attack you (ie because reasons) and they should go along with your suggestions, believe your lies or back down in the face of your threats.

I'm sure I can come up with a D You need one. I certainly didn't realize you were thinking A&ab were the only two options. I thought you meant them as two of the more extreme options on a sliding scale of them.

Edit: holy crap iPad autocorrect turned what I was trying to say into word salad. Fixed (mostly)

[Millstone85]

I thought you meant them as two of the more extreme options on a sliding scale of them.And when you said that neither A nor B would apply, I didn't think you were seriously considering "because it is a bit of both".


C) you influence their mind so they sub-conciously come up with justify why they're choosing not to attack you (ie because reasons)So, for example, they could be so hostile toward you that they want you to die last or live with the death of your allies? That's... That's indeed a C. :smalleek:

[Tanarii]

And when you said that neither A nor B would apply, I didn't think you were seriously considering "because it is a bit of both".Or something that isn't either. They really aren't the only two options.


So, for example, they could be so hostile toward you that they want you to die last or live with the death of your allies? That's... That's indeed a C. :smalleek:
"Now is not the time."
"Damn him, that's a good point."
"I'll deal with this fool later."
"I'm not afraid. This is just a tactical retreat."

[IShouldntBehere]

Derek, an evil and morbidly curious wizard decides to test this. First he finds a proper test subject: Bob, The Kill-o-Holic.

Bob is a well known killer, eager and willing to murder people over tiny perceived slights. Bob is also known to have hair trigger temper and also has a deep, deep hatered of Derek's people. In fact bob has been known to go on racist killing sprees just for the fun of it.

However bob is sentimental man with many friends and family he cares deeply about, and loves his hometown. He's a momma's boy sort of genocidal murderer.

One day while bob is visiting his hometown Derek is able to arrange things such that Bob is either restrained or hindered some way that he can directly witness Derek kill, maim and torture 50% of his closest friends and relatives. After this Bob is freed while also armed to teeth, at this same moment he can see that Derek has restrained the remaining 50% of his friends & family surrounded them with tinder, oil and such is about torch them to death. (likely along with most of the dry wooden buildings with straw roofs built closely together in his home town)

Derek then casts Charm Person on Bob, and bob fails is saving throw. Derek says "Hey bob. You're the only one who can stop me right now, but please don't. I assure you no harm will come to you however I am going to go torch all those people, including pickles (pickles being bob's beloved dog). So I would be quite appreciative if you'd just stand aside a safe distances. THaaaaaaanks."

Derek then resumes his movement towards the flammable group of bob's loved ones (including mr. pickles the dog), torch in hand.

What does and/or can bob do?
What is the experience like inside bob's head?

[JeenLeen]

Our warlock routinely will Charm Person someone who can't see him, then Disguise Self invocation to appear as a new 'friend'. Proceed to get info from them as you try to 'rescue' them. But it doesn't change what the charmed person values or believes in general.

For instance, we used it on a drow once, and drow are not known for trusting their friends. So, really, she was just willing to work with him instead of killing him on sight.


Derek, an evil and morbidly curious wizard decides to test this. First he finds a proper test subject: Bob, The Kill-o-Holic.

<snip>

What does and/or can bob do?
What is the experience like inside bob's head?

I would Bob can't attack Derek, but he can act to stop him by other means (though I guess Derek would have to make a max-DC (30?) Persuasion check (with advantage)... but really, auto-fail seems to make more sense.)

Mentally, it's unclear by RAW, but probably extremely conflicting emotions and thoughts that he can't comprehend, like knowing he should be killing Derek but for some reason shouldn't.

Re-reading the spell, he doesn't even get a second save in this situation. Which surprises me, but, well, RAW. I guess a very, very broad wording of "harmful to it" could include torching his loved ones, so the spell may end once he drops the torch, but that seems stretching the meaning.

[Vogonjeltz]

The description for Charm Person in 5E seems rather vague (even more so than Pathfinder) and I'm wondering how much influence you would allow the caster to have over its victim.
It basically just says that: "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance"

1. Is this mostly just a social/out of combat spell now or does it have combat use as well?

2. Can you make the victim attack his allies?

3. Can you make the victim attack someone he doesn't know?

4. If you gave the target a vial of poison and said it was a healing potion, could you make him drink it?

5. Could you make him just walk away from a combat while you're in the middle of killing his allies?

6. Would you require a Persuasion/Deception roll every time you asked him to do something?

I realise this is very dependent on the DM, but I'd like to hear you views and ideas on what can be done within the limits of the spell

The mechanical effects are outlined in the Social Interactions section of the DMG.

Effectively a friendly person will help/do something automatically when requested provided it doesn't harm/cost/threaten them. The DC of using social skills on them is significantly reduced, so it's actually fairly easy to convince a charmed character to take risks on the casters behalf.

To answer your questions:
1. Yes, see the Charmed condition at the back of the PHB.
2. Probably not in the traditional sense, they're still allies. Or to put it in other terms: Would you harm one friend on behalf of another just because they asked you to? Probably not. But you might intervene to try and stop them if one of them attacked the other.
3. Possible, depends on the risk. (See DMG Social Interactions section)
4. That depends on if they actually think it's a healing potion or not. If they knew it was poison, no, almost certainly not.
5. You might convince them, but remember, still allies, and it doesn't apply to your party, so he might just fight them.
6. "If an element of personal risk is involved, a successful Charisma check might be required to convince a friendly creature to take that risk." (DMG 244); Remember, Persuasion and Deception are just skills that might apply to a Charisma check.

As an example, by 20th level a character with 20 charisma and proficiency in persuasion can convince a charmed creature to take serious risks more than half the time.

So they could charm someone and much of the time convince that person to delay a monster that's chasing.

That makes the Enchanters Hypnotic Gaze crazy powerful in that the subject isn't aware they were charmed (unlike the Friends cantrip), so any asks seem totally normal!


we're seeing "friendly" and "friendly acquaintance" as not necessarily being the same thing. they might be. if the PHB and DMG had been released at the same time, rather than the former coming out months before the latter with no rule to reference,

Based purely on the chronology there's no reason at all to assume the term friendly in the DMG doesn't apply to any instance of friendly in the PHB.

Also, acquaintance merely indicates how well the subject knows them, not their attitude.

So "Friendly" and "Friendly Acquaintance" have identical attitude meanings with possible, though by no means certain, differences in how well the subjects know each other (the former is merely mute on the topic, the latter provides some level of certainty).


And that's what makes Create Thrall so DM-dependent. As a 14th level feature, you get the nearly bare-bones charmed condition. Close to worthless with A but quite interesting with B.

Create Thrall doesn't make subjects aware they were charmed, as is the case with Friends, for example. It has no visible effect. And, because of the social interaction rules for dealing with NPCs, a charmed character is very likely to do just about anything the Warlock asks (Warlocks are likely to have a 20 charisma and proficiency in a persuasion or deception check, giving them a +11 bonus, meaning that there's a near certainty the thrall will accept minor risks and a better than average chance the thrall will accept a significant (e.g. lethal) risk for the warlock).

It (perma-charm) is a very powerful ability.

[SharkForce]

Also, acquaintance merely indicates how well the subject knows them, not their attitude.

So "Friendly" and "Friendly Acquaintance" have identical attitude meanings with possible, though by no means certain, differences in how well the subjects know each other (the former is merely mute on the topic, the latter provides some level of certainty).

you got any actual evidence to support that, or just your own opinion, which is no more nor less valid than anyone else's?


Create Thrall doesn't make subjects aware they were charmed, as is the case with Friends, for example. It has no visible effect. And, because of the social interaction rules for dealing with NPCs, a charmed character is very likely to do just about anything the Warlock asks (Warlocks are likely to have a 20 charisma and proficiency in a persuasion or deception check, giving them a +11 bonus, meaning that there's a near certainty the thrall will accept minor risks and a better than average chance the thrall will accept a significant (e.g. lethal) risk for the warlock).

It (perma-charm) is a very powerful ability.

create thrall definitely doesn't make anyone friendly. charm person might do it (as noted, it depends on how you read it), but it is not part of being charmed in general.

all create thrall does is make the person unable to hurt you, give you advantage on social checks against that person, and let you communicate with that person telepathically.

if create thrall actually said that it made the person friendly, that would go a long way towards making the ability useful.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

As for a Demon: If they're willing to kill their current allies at a mere suggestion, they're probably equally willing to kill you (the charmer) as well given just how little they care about allies. If ruling charmed demons do kill, you might wind up with little more than a coin toss at which set of allies they betray and kill. I mean we've established betraying and killing allies is something they'll do at a drop of a hat and so charm is putting you in no special category with regards to avoiding or influencing their attacks.
Not quite. There's a decent chance the demon doesn't consider any of it's current allies as 'friendly' relationships, which leaves it more likely to attack them for you than the other way around.

But, yes, it's not very trustworthy, even when charmed.

[Tanarii]

if create thrall actually said that it made the person friendly, that would go a long way towards making the ability useful.
Permanent advantage on Cha checks, and (depending on how it was done) the person not even being aware that it's in place, already makes it useful.

Just not that useful as a combat ability. OTOH that's true for most of the more subtle enchantments and illusions.

[SharkForce]

Permanent advantage on Cha checks, and (depending on how it was done) the person not even being aware that it's in place, already makes it useful.

Just not that useful as a combat ability. OTOH that's true for most of the more subtle enchantments and illusions.

advantage on cha checks is as easy as having a second person help you. outside of combat, you likely don't need your actions for anything else anyways. it might come up, but we're talking about a pretty specific scenario here:

- a specific individual who you have previously been able to encounter while they were helpless
- without anyone else knowing so that they couldn't have removed the effect
- you haven't used your ability on anyone else since then
- you don't have anyone else with you that could help

could that come up? yeah, i guess so. is it likely to come up particularly often? eh, not so much.

[Tanarii]

advantage on cha checks is as easy as having a second person help you.That's a pretty huge assumption that it's even possible. If two people get involved in a negotiation, a DM could be entirely justified in calling it a Group check instead of helping. A failure in the check on their part is just as likely to cause the entire thing to fail, not just fail to provide advantage.


- a specific individual who you have previously been able to encounter while they were helpless
- without anyone else knowing so that they couldn't have removed the effectGiven most DMs seem to rule sleeping = unconscious / incapacitated, not really a problem in most games.

[SharkForce]

That's a pretty huge assumption that it's even possible. If two people get involved in a negotiation, a DM could be entirely justified in calling it a Group check instead of helping. A failure in the check on their part is just as likely to cause the entire thing to fail, not just fail to provide advantage.

Given most DMs seem to rule sleeping = unconscious / incapacitated, not really a problem in most games.

two people making checks, one of them succeeding is half, so if either succeeds the entire group is considered to succeed... still sounds pretty close to advantage.

and if it's that easy for you to just walk up to the sleeping target's private quarters, it's probably not that hard to succeed on charisma checks against them anyways, and they probably can't do that much for you anyways.

[Zorku]

There is one incredibly important thing to note about Charm Person: when it's all over, the target knows you charmed it. They know. Sure, for that hour you've got an ally. But when the duration ends, they know you've manipulated them with magic. I see this as a strong argument for more short-term uses of this spell, since I know that I, personally, would be EXTREMELY likely to actively dislike the caster after the spell ends. Great for getting yourself past the castle guards, not so great for brokering trade deals with tribal leaders.

Even if you've got the completely stereotypical social life of a tabletop gamer* you've probably had the experience of someone manipulating you fairly blatantly, and then you didn't do anything about it the next time you met them.

*Or maybe more so because of...

A lot of DMs treat this like the NPC finding out that you stole their wallet, but it doesn't have to be that way. Yeah, you manipulated a person, but to what end? If you made them fail at their duty or accept a seriously bad deal then they're going to realize that, and probably seek to undo those mistakes or pay you back for it, but if you think a little harder and you give them something they wanted but wouldn't have asked for, or you just don't saddle them with the bad consequences of your actions and you couple it with a little bribe to keep them happy after the fact, then they probably recognize that they're not the more powerful party in their interactions with you, but they don't necessarily attack you or refuse to speak with you again the next time you meet.

Obviously most parties are going to almost automatically fail at least one (at the very least,) of those criteria, but with spells that grant you advantage for a duration you should be thinking about how you can cram in a lot of favorable outcomes in that time. If you're never going to interact with them again and they have no power anywhere else then use them and get out, but you can absolutely manipulate longer term contacts if you're not utterly ruining them in every interaction.

tldr; Try getting someone to make a bad decision and then show them that it was a good thing, or at least not a completely negative thing.

[Tanarii]

two people making checks, one of them succeeding is half, so if either succeeds the entire group is considered to succeed... still sounds pretty close to advantage.

and if it's that easy for you to just walk up to the sleeping target's private quarters, it's probably not that hard to succeed on charisma checks against them anyways, and they probably can't do that much for you anyways.
Cool. I get it now. You think the charmed condition and features/spells that use it are worthless because you're doing everything you can to make them worthless.

[Knaight]

Even if you've got the completely stereotypical social life of a tabletop gamer* you've probably had the experience of someone manipulating you fairly blatantly, and then you didn't do anything about it the next time you met them.

This would be more along the lines of being on the receiving end of a diplomacy check. Being charmed is more like being drugged then manipulated, and while blatant manipulation gets shrugged off pretty routinely drugging really doesn't.

[IShouldntBehere]

This would be more along the lines of being on the receiving end of a diplomacy check. Being charmed is more like being drugged then manipulated, and while blatant manipulation gets shrugged off pretty routinely drugging really doesn't.

This is a very a good analogy. Charm is an external factor that alters one's usual state of mind. It makes you inclined to do things you normally would not. While the effects of Charm are limited in comparison to something like dominate, I think it would be hard to argue that the subject of a Charm spell has not been robbed of their free will in a very substantive way.

One need only think for a moment on the implications of using Charm in the context of securing legal agreements, or during sexual/romantic endeavors to understand how frightfully awful spell is on a morale & ethical label.

There is something honestly quite vile about the kind of power Charm exerts.

[Zorku]

This would be more along the lines of being on the receiving end of a diplomacy check. Being charmed is more like being drugged then manipulated, and while blatant manipulation gets shrugged off pretty routinely drugging really doesn't.

...

The spell is called charm bruh.

[Contrast]

A lot of DMs treat this like the NPC finding out that you stole their wallet, but it doesn't have to be that way. Yeah, you manipulated a person, but to what end? If you made them fail at their duty or accept a seriously bad deal then they're going to realize that, and probably seek to undo those mistakes or pay you back for it, but if you think a little harder and you give them something they wanted but wouldn't have asked for, or you just don't saddle them with the bad consequences of your actions and you couple it with a little bribe to keep them happy after the fact, then they probably recognize that they're not the more powerful party in their interactions with you, but they don't necessarily attack you or refuse to speak with you again the next time you meet.

Obviously most parties are going to almost automatically fail at least one (at the very least,) of those criteria, but with spells that grant you advantage for a duration you should be thinking about how you can cram in a lot of favorable outcomes in that time. If you're never going to interact with them again and they have no power anywhere else then use them and get out, but you can absolutely manipulate longer term contacts if you're not utterly ruining them in every interaction.

tldr; Try getting someone to make a bad decision and then show them that it was a good thing, or at least not a completely negative thing.

I'm pretty sure if you've charmed someone previously no matter how generous you were they would be suspicious of you in all future interactions, giving you disadvantage on future checks. Of course you could just charm them again to bring it back to normal...

...It may not be sensible to try the same trick 3 times on the same person.

[Knaight]

...

The spell is called charm bruh.
...

The spell is called charm, bruh. The social manipulation following the spell is bog standard social manipulation of the sort that people shrug off on a daily basis. It just happens to be preceded by the use of mind affecting magic that makes people more susceptible to persuasion. That's not substantively different than slipping someone a mind altering chemical without their knowledge prior to social manipulation. It's an act of hostility, and people will remember it.

[Tanarii]

It's an act of hostility, and people will remember it.Provided they're aware of being charmed. Which with the Charm Person spell, they specifically will be when it ends. Becoming wary at that point (in terms of future D&D Cha checks = hostile) certainly makes sense in the majority of cases.

[SharkForce]

Cool. I get it now. You think the charmed condition and features/spells that use it are worthless because you're doing everything you can to make them worthless.

no. i think the charmed condition and features/spells that use it are very low value (but not necessarily worthless) because i'm doing everything i can to succeed already, and charm without riders doesn't add anything on top of that; if i already have advantage, getting advantage does absolutely nothing for me.

now, in the great majority of situations, there isn't really much of a difference between "very low value" and "worthless" because you'll typically have better options, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference. if you could access a charm effect without cost, it would on occasion be of some value; maybe you actually don't have anyone around to help, or maybe you just need to make it impossible for someone to attack you personally, for example. the problem i have is that it isn't without cost. create thrall is taking up your warlock archetype capstone for an ability that is *extremely* situational. it has a high cost, and most of the time a very low value.

or, to put it another way... imagine there was a concealed knife in the (simple) weapons list that does d3 slashing or piercing damage, but requires a DC 12 investigation check to find it on your person, and costs 10 gold. a lot of people would probably use it, not because they think it's a great weapon, not because they think it's going to remain hidden reliably when they're searched, but because it has a very low cost and it *might* come in handy.

now imagine that same knife costs 1500 gold, and the only way to become proficient was by taking the feat that grants 4 weapon proficiencies. almost nobody would ever buy or use one. if you found one, you'd probably be inclined to sell it and use the gold for almost anything else, even if the "anything else" is just saving money for retirement.

low cost with low benefit is fine. high cost with high benefit (like a suit of full plate for a paladin or fighter) is fine. low benefit with high cost, i have a problem with that. and most everything that functions based on charm is higher cost than it is value by a significant margin, at least for PCs (some monsters have riders attached to their charm that make them very high value, which is completely different).

[Zorku]

...

The spell is called charm, bruh. The social manipulation following the spell is bog standard social manipulation of the sort that people shrug off on a daily basis. It just happens to be preceded by the use of mind affecting magic that makes people more susceptible to persuasion. That's not substantively different than slipping someone a mind altering chemical without their knowledge prior to social manipulation. It's an act of hostility, and people will remember it.

If I just use my ability scores and proficiency bonus to 'charm' someone is that like slipping them mind altering chemicals?

[Millstone85]

If I just use my ability scores and proficiency bonus to 'charm' someone is that like slipping them mind altering chemicals?No, that's just being charismatic and charming.

If you literally cast a spell on them, then I agree with the drug parallel.

It is like how a "love potion" is a difficult trope to use these days.

[Contrast]

If I just use my ability scores and proficiency bonus to 'charm' someone is that like slipping them mind altering chemicals?

If a car salesmen sold you a car and you later found out it was a bit of a dud you might be annoyed and complain but its likely you wouldn't get anywhere.

If you found out he had literally drugged you, he would have a lawsuit on his hands and you would likely get sufficient compensation to buy many cars.

They are definately different intensity events and using magic is much more akin to drugging than persuading.

[Zorku]

No, that's just being charismatic and charming.

If you literally cast a spell on them, then I agree with the drug parallel.

It is like how a "love potion" is a difficult trope to use these days.

It's a hostile action that bypasses their judgement for self serving reasons. Ethically indistinguishable, but because it's not something you're good at doing in real life you don't want to assign the obvious consequences to it and because spells are so much more familiar you want to assign one dimensional consequences to them.


If a car salesmen sold you a car and you later found out it was a bit of a dud you might be annoyed and complain but its likely you wouldn't get anywhere.

If you found out he had literally drugged you, he would have a lawsuit on his hands and you would likely get sufficient compensation to buy many cars.

They are definately different intensity events and using magic is much more akin to drugging than persuading.

In the D&D context, if I found out that he literally drugged me, or even just tried to, that would provoke the same response as swinging a sword at me. The friends cantrip specifies that the target becomes upset (hostile) when the spell wears off, but charm only states that they become aware. This speaks to a very different kind of consequence, so I reject that this spell is akin to drugging someone.

[Knaight]

It's a hostile action that bypasses their judgement for self serving reasons. Ethically indistinguishable, but because it's not something you're good at doing in real life you don't want to assign the obvious consequences to it and because spells are so much more familiar you want to assign one dimensional consequences to them.

Being charismatic is a hostile action now? And how exactly does it bypass the judgement - the judgement is left intact? There's spin applied to get the target to judge things differently, but you're not actually affecting their judgement at all. Charm spells do, much the same way as drugging someone.

[Vogonjeltz]

you got any actual evidence to support that, or just your own opinion, which is no more nor less valid than anyone else's?

That wasn't my opinion, those are the words used. You don't like it, use different words.


create thrall definitely doesn't make anyone friendly. charm person might do it (as noted, it depends on how you read it), but it is not part of being charmed in general.

all create thrall does is make the person unable to hurt you, give you advantage on social checks against that person, and let you communicate with that person telepathically.

if create thrall actually said that it made the person friendly, that would go a long way towards making the ability useful.

Attitude can be changed via conversation (DMG 244), and thanks to telepathy and the inability to harm you, there's nothing but time. It might take a couple interactions, but it's fairly inevitable as the Warlock can change the creature from even hostile to friendly on a longterm basis.

In the short term, even a hostile creature will do what is asked more than 50% of the time as long as it doesn't involve risk.


That's a pretty huge assumption that it's even possible. If two people get involved in a negotiation, a DM could be entirely justified in calling it a Group check instead of helping. A failure in the check on their part is just as likely to cause the entire thing to fail, not just fail to provide advantage.

DMG 245: "Aiding the Check. Other characters who make substantial contributions to the conversation can help the character making the check. If a helping character says or does something that would influence the interaction in a positive way, the character making the Charisma check can do so with advantage. If the other character inadvertently says something counterproductive or offensive, the character making the Charisma check had disadvantage on that check.

Create Thrall bypasses the threat of your teammate putting their foot in their mouth during the conversation and ruining everything. This is compounded by the possibility of multiple checks for multiple goals.

[Millstone85]

It's a hostile action
Being charismatic is a hostile action now?Charisma (Performance) or Charisma (Persuasion) wouldn't be, but Charisma (Deception) or Charisma (Intimidation) would, most of the time.


that bypasses their judgement
And how exactly does it bypass the judgement - the judgement is left intact.I would like to know that too.


Ethically indistinguishableFrom drugging someone? No.
This is starting to sound like a "We are all slaves to molecules anyway" line of thought.


The friends cantrip specifies that the target becomes upset (hostile) when the spell wears off, but charm only states that they become aware.But charm person does everything friends does and then some. Are you seriously suggesting the hostility is a bug of the spell itself?

[Contrast]

In the D&D context, if I found out that he literally drugged me, or even just tried to, that would provoke the same response as swinging a sword at me. The friends cantrip specifies that the target becomes upset (hostile) when the spell wears off, but charm only states that they become aware. This speaks to a very different kind of consequence, so I reject that this spell is akin to drugging someone.

..OK so they become aware that a charm spell was cast upon them. I would expect them to react identically to discovering that they had been drugged or, indeed, had the Friends cantrip used on them (which is, I would point out actually a less invasive charm spell as at least the person could still choose to punch you if they chose as it doesn't actually impose the charmed condition I believe). Unless you think the that creature becoming hostile is actually part of the magic of the Friends cantrip and they are in fact magically compelled to hate you from that point onwards rather than just thinking you're a bad person for mentally controlling them?

If your stance is really that there is no moral difference between convincing someone to let you do something and taking away someones mental faculties so they can't stop you doing something I don't really think we have much common ground here.

Edit - whoops. Ninjad. That'll teach me to open a load of pages to look at later and forgetting to refresh before responding!

[Millstone85]

Edit - whoops. Ninjad. That'll teach me to open a load of pages to look at later and forgetting to refresh before responding!Eh, you said it better. :smallamused:

[Vogonjeltz]

Charisma (Performance) or Charisma (Persuasion) wouldn't be, but Charisma (Deception) or Charisma (Intimidation) would, most of the time.

I would like to know that too.

From drugging someone? No.
This is starting to sound like a "We are all slaves to molecules anyway" line of thought.

But charm person does everything friends does and then some. Are you seriously suggesting the hostility is a bug of the spell itself?

No I think he's just suggesting that hostility isn't mandated by the better (costly) 1st level spell, whereas it is by the cantrip.

[Tanarii]

DMG 245: "Aiding the Check. Other characters who make substantial contributions to the conversation can help the character making the check. If a helping character says or does something that would influence the interaction in a positive way, the character making the Charisma check can do so with advantage. If the other character inadvertently says something counterproductive or offensive, the character making the Charisma check had disadvantage on that check.

Create Thrall bypasses the threat of your teammate putting their foot in their mouth during the conversation and ruining everything. This is compounded by the possibility of multiple checks for multiple goals.Interesting. I've been running them as Group Checks. Good to know.

[Contrast]

No I think he's just suggesting that hostility isn't mandated by the better (costly) 1st level spell, whereas it is by the cantrip.

Sure...but why would someone react better to having the charm spell cast on them than the friends cantrip? As we've said, the effects of the charm spell are in fact even more profound so if they were angry at you casting the friends cantrip on them they should be equally or more angry at having the charm spell cast on them.

As an aside, the fireball spell doesn't include a rider stating that people turn hostile after you cast it on them but I would be pretty surprised if most people didn't like you much after you threw one in their direction. I don't think you should be reading into the lack of such a rider on the charm spell that people would be totally fine with you casting it on them.

[Zorku]

Being charismatic is a hostile action now? And how exactly does it bypass the judgement - the judgement is left intact? There's spin applied to get the target to judge things differently, but you're not actually affecting their judgement at all. Charm spells do, much the same way as drugging someone.
Ok, the charm spell applies spin.


I would like to know that too.Non-magical and non-drug based manipulation bypasses your judgement is exactly the same way that magical manipulation bypasses your judgement. If someone manipulates you by either means while literally offering you nothing positive in return then your unaltered judgement would never have accepted that, yet they did they did that to you anyway. If you butter them up but also give them some compelling reasons why something aligns with their desires/morals then their judgement might have rejected it because they don't trust you in general but there are tropes to high heaven of people negotiating like that is semi-hostile situations.

Generally speaking, the more parts of the charm spell that you use at the same time is probably going to mean a bigger infraction against the target's free will, but actually take some time and think about the nature of the social interaction.

From drugging someone? No.[/quote]
Stop putting words in my mouth. I have never accepted that the charm spell is comparable to drugging someone and I maintain that that interpretation is ludicrous, running both against the rules as written as well as the intention. In it's earliest inception it was basically dominate person without a duration limit, but they've cleaved that off into its own spell so that classic charm person isn't purely some combat crowd control affair. They've got a very specific set of actions that break the effect to the tune of things you can't just talk your way out of (though if you've seen a DM let players talk their way out of sinking a knife into someone's back I suppose that makes the list a bit outdated.)

Magic gets you out of locks, lets you teleport past guards and hostile creatures, make people see things that aren't there, speak into another person's head, spy on distant people, and jump higher than somebody that's actually got legs perfect for the task- why do you think it doesn't have any play in normal social interactions?


This is starting to sound like a "We are all slaves to molecules anyway" line of thought.Even if I was going anywhere near that I know better than to pretend that emergent properties don't exist.


But charm person does everything friends does and then some. Are you seriously suggesting the hostility is a bug of the spell itself?The friends cantrip comes with a hostile reaction afterward. The Charm spell is superior because it is more versatile, not necessarily provoking hostility. That depends on the use and the DM's judgement.

[Contrast]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have never accepted that the charm spell is comparable to drugging someone and I maintain that that interpretation is ludicrous, running both against the rules as written as well as the intention.

...I don't think anyone was saying you did find the two comparable - that's what we're disagreeing with you about. You did describe being a convincing speaker and drugging someone as being 'ethically indistinguishable' which I disagree with in the strongest possible terms. I honestly still don't really understand what you think is the difference between drugging someone and charming them. Both compromise your mental faculties in order to make you more pliable to suggestion. One is more subtle than the other, thats about it.


Magic gets you out of locks, lets you teleport past guards and hostile creatures, make people see things that aren't there, speak into another person's head, spy on distant people, and jump higher than somebody that's actually got legs perfect for the task- why do you think it doesn't have any play in normal social interactions?

No-one has said you can't use charm magic. What we've said is that you better be prepared for the people whom you have charmed to be angry at the fact that you charmed them. Much like someone would be angry at you if you used magic to teleport into their house and steal from them or used magic to throw a fireball at them.


The friends cantrip comes with a hostile reaction afterward. The Charm spell is superior because it is more versatile, not necessarily provoking hostility. That depends on the use and the DM's judgement.

So for clarity, you think the hostility following Friends is a magically enforced part of the spell rather than just a reaction from people to realising they've been magically manipulated? Does this mean you can get rid of it with a dispel magic? No save charm effect with no downside, whoo! What do you think would be an appropriate reaction from someone on discovering they they have been magically compelled to like someone?

You seem to be arguing that the charm spell is superior because it gives the DM flexibility in the response which allows the DM to not have a hostile reaction if you treated them well. To quote the Friends cantrip (emphasis mine):


A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM's discretion) depending on the nature of your interaction with it.

So...that flexibility is already there in the Friends cantrip. I really just do not understand what you perceive the difference as being. As I said, no other spell includes a description outlining what the targets feelings towards having the spell cast on them will be - you can't assume just because the charm spells don't include this that people will be totally fine with you casting it on them.

As I've said, bar more immediate or elabourate schemes my simple solution would to give you disadvantage on social checks with someone you have charmed (or if you gain a reputation for charming people all the time, other people as well) as they begin to distrust their own interactions with you. More than that would be when you start getting people refusing to talk to you or only deal with you through intermediaries.

Charm spells are like intimidate. It can be very effective in the right situation but use it all the time and you're going to start making a lot of enemies.

[Ruslan]

The description for Charm Person in 5E seems rather vague (even more so than Pathfinder) and I'm wondering how much influence you would allow the caster to have over its victim.
It basically just says that: "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance"
This is fluff. The mechanical effect of Charm Person is that the target acquires the Charmed condition, which means:
1. You have Advantage on ability checks to interact socially with the target.
2. The target can't attack you or target you with hostile spells or abilities.

That's it, no more and no less.


1. Is this mostly just a social/out of combat spell now or does it have combat use as well?Obviously, if they can't attack you, that's one very clear in-combat use of it.


2. Can you make the victim attack his allies?You ask the victim to attack his allies. The DM sets a DC. You roll Persuasion against that DC, with Advantage. If you succeed, he will do as you asked. [as an aside note, the DC should be fairly high. Asking someone to attack his allies is nothing trivial.]


3. Can you make the victim attack someone he doesn't know?You ask the victim to attack that person. The DM sets a DC. You roll Persuasion against that DC, with Advantage. If you succeed, he will do as you asked.


4. If you gave the target a vial of poison and said it was a healing potion, could you make him drink it?You tell the victim to drink the vial. The DM either sets a DC or rolls Insight for the enemy. You roll Persuasion of Deception, as appropriate, against that, with Advantage.


5. Could you make him just walk away from a combat while you're in the middle of killing his allies?The spell only ends if you or your allies attack the charmed creature. Attacking his friends, apparently, doesn't end the spell. So, yes, you can ask him to leave the combat. The DM sets a DC. You roll Persuasion against that DC, with Advantage. If you succeed, he will do as you asked.


6. Would you require a Persuasion/Deception roll every time you asked him to do something?If you ask for something that a friendly acquaintance would normally do, you don't need to roll - or the DM can set the DC so low as to autosucceed. "Hey, don't tell the captain of the guards you saw me in this alley" is probably an autosuccess or a very low DC. "Hey, go and kill the captain of the guards" is another matter entirely. If you ask them to kill a person [would you kill a person just because a friendly acquaintance asked you??], then, yes, you need to roll. Against a pretty high DC. But, you do have Advantage ...

[IShouldntBehere]

Ok, the charm spell applies spin.

...

From drugging someone? No.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I have never accepted that the charm spell is comparable to drugging someone and I maintain that that interpretation is ludicrous, running both against the rules as written as well as the intention.
...

Consider two people:

Burt. The Charismatic but smelly wizard.
Francine. The Corn farmer who has an open attitude about casual sex with friends.

The Setup:
Burt comes upon Francine's farm house and after dealing with some goblins that have been damaging her corn fields, is offered to stay for dinner. Burt finds he rather fancies Francine. He moves to make some advances, yet she recoils at his stench. We then have three scenarios.

Scenario 0: Burt just gives his advances a go, as is yelling "Hey lets bone". Francine insists that he is smelly and gross. Rejected Burt thanks her for dinner and leaves, still feeling good about having a free dinner even if his lack of personal hygiene has once again stymied his romantic interests.

Scenario 1: Burt takes out his guitar, and sings a flattering song about her while also bragging quite effectively about his sexual prowess. A couple of 20s on charisma checks later, Francine is quite taken with both Burt's musical ability and fully convinced that his exceptional skills a lover will outweigh his odor and promptly returns his advances. (for what it's worth his song is truthful, Burt despite his smell is quite the talented manipulator of genitalia)

Scenario 2: Burt casts Charm Person, and bemoans his recent lack of sexual activity. The effects of Charm causing her to seem as friend, causes her to accept his advances just because she hates to see a friend down like that even if he is a bit stinky.

Scenario 3: While her back is turned Burt sprinkles some white powder in drink, which causes the imbiber into a dazed state in which they can do little but agree in confusion to just about anything they're asked.



Please order the scenarios in which Burt is acting from most to least immorally. Ties are allowed and please note if in any of the scenarios he is not acting immoral at all.

Which if any of the scenarios would you personally object to and/or expect a good-align bystander to intervene if they are aware of what is going on.
Which if any of the scenarios would you want the actions of burt to be against the law in a society in which you were to live.

[Zorku]

which I disagree with in the strongest possible terms.
One is more subtle than the other, thats about it.
I can't make any sense of your position.


No-one has said you can't use charm magic. What we've said is that you better be prepared for the people whom you have charmed to be angry at the fact that you charmed them. Much like someone would be angry at you if you used magic to teleport into their house and steal from them or used magic to throw a fireball at them. Or angry if you used deception to get them to hand over an item to you?


So for clarity, you think the hostility following Friends is a magically enforced part of the spell rather than just a reaction from people to realising they've been magically manipulated? Does this mean you can get rid of it with a dispel magic? No save charm effect with no downside, whoo! What do you think would be an appropriate reaction from someone on discovering they they have been magically compelled to like someone?You can't dispel a spell that has already expired via duration. If you need some kind of mental justification you could say that the friends cantrip cashes in on all of the kind and generous feelings a person is going to have towards you for the next hour so when it expires they've got the usual "hey, I was manipulated!" reaction as well as a dearth of the thought-stuff needed to not become spiteful about it.


You seem to be arguing that the charm spell is superior because it gives the DM flexibility in the response which allows the DM to not have a hostile reaction if you treated them well. To quote the Friends cantrip (emphasis mine):And what's different in the friends text vs the charm person text?

We both understand that the developers would intentionally repeat themselves and make key words out of certain terms as they were writing these rules, right? What is accomplished by writing two spells that seem like they would belong to the same family of spells with such different language?

If your argument that magically influencing someone is as severe as drugging them then wouldn't we expect all of this hostile reaction stuff to sit in the charmed effect itself? Is it somehow not loathesome when fey creatures do it? This is explicitly the term for being magically convincing, right?



So...that flexibility is already there in the Friends cantrip. I really just do not understand what you perceive the difference as being. As I said, no other spell includes a description outlining what the targets feelings towards having the spell cast on them will be - you can't assume just because the charm spells don't include this that people will be totally fine with you casting it on them.
My argument has basically been "you can't assume just because the charm spells don't mention the target's feelings towards you that they will be totally upset about you casting it on them."

You seem to understand understand this logic, and I find the disingenuous nature of this conversation somewhat frustrating.


As I've said, bar more immediate or elabourate schemes my simple solution would to give you disadvantage on social checks with someone you have charmed (or if you gain a reputation for charming people all the time, other people as well) as they begin to distrust their own interactions with you. More than that would be when you start getting people refusing to talk to you or only deal with you through intermediaries.

Charm spells are like intimidate. It can be very effective in the right situation but use it all the time and you're going to start making a lot of enemies.
You're making more claims that I don't accept here. In the interest of throwing you a bone here I'll present a small edit that makes it acceptable by my standards: "If you use charm spells like you would use intimidation then they will have the same consequences, and possibly other consequences depending on how the setting views magic."



Consider two people:

Burt. The Charismatic but smelly wizard.
Francine. The Corn farmer who has an open attitude about casual sex with friends.

The Setup:
Burt comes upon Francine's farm house and after dealing with some goblins that have been damaging her corn fields, is offered to stay for dinner. Burt finds he rather fancies Francine. He moves to make some advances, yet she recoils at his stench. We then have three scenarios.

Scenario 0: Burt just gives his advances a go, as is yelling "Hey lets bone". Francine insists that he is smelly and gross. Rejected Burt thanks her for dinner and leaves, still feeling good about having a free dinner even if his lack of personal hygiene has once again stymied his romantic interests.

Scenario 1: Burt takes out his guitar, and sings a flattering song about her while also bragging quite effectively about his sexual prowess. A couple of 20s on charisma checks later, Francine is quite taken with both Burt's musical ability and fully convinced that his exceptional skills a lover will outweigh his odor and promptly returns his advances. (for what it's worth his song is truthful, Burt despite his smell is quite the talented manipulator of genitalia)

Scenario 2: Burt casts Charm Person, and bemoans his recent lack of sexual activity. The effects of Charm causing her to seem as friend, causes her to accept his advances just because she hates to see a friend down like that even if he is a bit stinky.

Scenario 3: While her back is turned Burt sprinkles some white powder in drink, which causes the imbiber into a dazed state in which they can do little but agree in confusion to just about anything they're asked.

Please order the scenarios in which Burt is acting from most to least immorally. Ties are allowed and please note if in any of the scenarios he is not acting immoral at all.

Which if any of the scenarios would you personally object to and/or expect a good-align bystander to intervene if they are aware of what is going on.
Which if any of the scenarios would you want the actions of burt to be against the law in a society in which you were to live.

#0 (Starting with zero? What are you, a programmer?) Doesn't seem written to imply this, but where he has just single handed-ly killed a bunch of humanoids and the woman is alone there's more than a little room for the advances to be coercive. You'd need exact dialogue and tone of voice to determine that, and it tends to be a bit of a blind spot for men since we rarely have to think about somebody with a lot more killing potential than ourselves demanding that we have sex right no, coupled with revulsion to something about their body, but since I'm fairly sure you didn't mean for any of that to be part of the scene I'll suppress that reaction a bit to try and make it closer to the neutral scenario you most likely had in mind.

#1 Sounds like persuasion to me. Your judgement of the situation may differ from another's, which is fine because none of us are all that close to omniscient, so persuasion is mostly about sharing true details so that both parties are operating off of more similar axioms. Where he has flattered her there's some room for manipulation, but it doesn't really sound like this stray outside the bounds of rather typical flirting, and where we have audience knowledge of her attitude towards casual sex we objectively know that none of this runs against her character.

#2 Pity sex seems like one of the last comparisons you should have made, because I find that entire concept to be both be highly manipulative and to involve an outright absence of desirability. Moreover it seems like the scene plays out the same way regardless of the charm spell, so I'm going to alter your list a bit here for the final ranking.

#3 You seem to have started this out with the intent that it just outright knocks her out, but then backed off from that so that she's awake-ish and respond to everything with a weak "OK." Presumably they don't really know what's happening and would have to mostly piece it together later, so fantasy roofies are going to be hands down the worst option here.

New list: 1a and 2a don't involve a charm spell, 1b and 2b do. The success or failure to get what Burt wants in the end is omitted, except for #3 where only deus ex machina could prevent it.

#1a and #1b tie.
#0, cuz the implication.
#2a. Poor form dude.
#2b. Poor form and the addition of the charm spell seems to make this into more of a deception ordeal.
#3 is outright reprehensible.
1st and 2nd place (3rd place? (0th and 2nd place??)) shuffle rapidly as we change the nature of Francine, but I'm assuming that Burt isn't doing all of this having only met her for the goblin contract, since you gave us a lot of meta knowledge otherwise.

A good aligned bystander (nevermind how they know any of this is happening,) could rightly intervene for any of these but #1, although I don't trust the typical person off the streets to have a very good assessment of 0, 2a and 2b.
#3 is the only one that is outright illegal here, but if we had better consent laws 0, 2a and 2b could all regularly be prosecuted somewhere under the umbrella of rape laws. Chances are when you hear that word you only think of the directly violent variety, so prosecution of any of these ought receive a somewhat lighter sentence for the lack of battery and the limited nature of any abuse taking place.

If we create a 4th scenario where Burt has never met her before, found out where she lives, found out that she absolutely does not sleep with people until they are moderately good friends, absolutely sleeps with any moderately good friend that requests it, and then casts charm on her the moment she opens the door, then we've got something almost as bad as #3, depending on her reaction to it. If her sole motivation for this has been colored by self preservation, and she doesn't suffer any unusual injury from the encounter, then she may still feel that her privacy has been invaded. If she has expressed this as a fantasy to a friend and that friend relayed it to Burt then I can't really argue that any harm has been done (although the DM running any of this ought damn well inform their players what kind of game their running well ahead of time.) If instead her motivations were more akin to wanting to deepen her friendships then this runs very counter to her goals and one would expect her to be rather upset when the charm wore off.

[Contrast]

I can't make any sense of your position.

The point I was trying to make there is that I don't see any real difference between using magic to make someone more suggestable and using a drug to make someone more suggestable. Magic is likely to be easier to pull off that seems to be the only real difference.

Apologies if I seem to be taking a bit of a hard line stance here but I am still finding your statement that you don't consider there to be a difference between convincing someone to do something and drugging them to do it a little hard to process.


Or angry if you used deception to get them to hand over an item to you?

Sure, depending on the nature and circumstances of the lie.



You can't dispel a spell that has already expired via duration. If you need some kind of mental justification you could say that the friends cantrip cashes in on all of the kind and generous feelings a person is going to have towards you for the next hour so when it expires they've got the usual "hey, I was manipulated!" reaction as well as a dearth of the thought-stuff needed to not become spiteful about it.

Unless I'm missing something in the rulebook you've made up that rule about the spell having 'expired' rendering it immune to being dispelled. If there is a magical effect outstanding (i.e. the targets hostile feelings towards the caster) that it is subject to Dispel Magic. Regardless, we clearly disagree about how the Friends cantrip works as I don't think it is a magical effect but rather guidance for the DM on how people will react to its casting and that was only really a throwaway line so we can draw a line under that as far as I'm concerned.


If your argument that magically influencing someone is as severe as drugging them then wouldn't we expect all of this hostile reaction stuff to sit in the charmed effect itself? Is it somehow not loathesome when fey creatures do it? This is explicitly the term for being magically convincing, right?

I would point out that fey have historically had a reputation of being tricky and to be avoided for precisely this exact reason.


My argument has basically been "you can't assume just because the charm spells don't mention the target's feelings towards you that they will be totally upset about you casting it on them."

You seem to understand understand this logic, and I find the disingenuous nature of this conversation somewhat frustrating.

We started this conversation with you making the claim that its definately possible for you to repeatedly use charm on a person who you intend to have a long term relationship with. I literally can't think of a situation in which that would be a thing. If you barter with him and get a good deal, well - alls fair in the market place. But lets say you charm a shopkeep to get a better deal. Knowing that, why would he ever deal with you directly again? He knows he can't trust you not to use magic to manipulate him - he would ban you from his shop or only deal with you through an assistant. He may even spread the word to other shopkeeps.

Basically, if you are doing something truly in someones best interests you shouldn't need to be charming them in the first place which generally removes any positive argument you could make to explain why you're charming them.



You're making more claims that I don't accept here. In the interest of throwing you a bone here I'll present a small edit that makes it acceptable by my standards: "If you use charm spells like you would use intimidation then they will have the same consequences, and possibly other consequences depending on how the setting views magic."

I really don't see why the settings opinion of magic is super relevant here. Obviously if magic is viewed poorly then charm will seem even worse much like any spell, but I'm pretty sure regardless of the setting that no-one likes someone feebleminding them before getting them to sign a legal contract - even if it later turns out there were no loopholes you just wanted to make sure they signed.

Honestly in games terms I think we agree on more than we disagree on (I don't think the spell should have automatic penalties as the DM is best positioned to adjudicate and even Friends is left up to the DM with consequences ranging from a frown to hired assassins). There are some massive gulfs we disagree on though which are mostly issues about how morally questionable it is to mess with someones mind and their likely reactions to it - I don't and never will agree with your stated stance on that so I may just step out here and let the thread resume its previous course.

[Segev]

Charm-based magic is interesting in where it goes from gray to black, morally speaking. On the one hand, a sorcerer who uses it regularly as an ice-breaker to make it easier to make friends might be looked askance at, but as long as he's not "taking advantage" of people, there's a big question mark on whether there's really more harm in starting from "friendly acquaintance" or from "stranger" and using Persuasion to work one's way into "good friends." On the other, the moment matters of consent start entering into it - whether the ever-so-obvious "charm the girl to sleep with you" scenario or something more like "charm the innkeeper into giving you a free meal" or "charm the salesman into giving you a discount," it starts to look pretty dark gray if not outright black.

The reversal has been considered often enough that my favorite game doesn't generally reveal much, but it is still worth examining the enchantress charming a handsome farmboy, too. Does the fact that he's a boy and she's seducing him make it "better?" Generally, I expect most will answer "no." Not even if the excuse of "getting him out of his own way" is used. ("He wants her but is too nervous to accept" or some malarkey.)

But here's a fun one.
Ella the Enchantress knows that Brad the Barbarian is a well-known lover of women, but has heard rather unnerving tales of how he can get...rough...with the girls he's with. Nevertheless, despite the fact that he's not QUITE ever forced himself on anybody unwilling, she's nervous about encountering him. And a bit confused, because for every girl she hears about who had it rough with him, she knows a couple others who swoon at the idea that he might "get rough" with them. (Perhaps they don't take it as seriously as the reality might be.)

When she finally encounters him, she realizes that he has Charisma as big as his...muscles. And she is, in spite of herself, rather interested. He's coming on to her, and he's not exactly subtle (though from him, it's charming - high Cha, remember). Afraid he might hurt her if she doesn't take precautions, she charms him before turning her own seductive wiles back on him, knowing that, while Charmed, he literally can't bring himself to hurt her.


Derek, an evil and morbidly curious wizard decides to test this. First he finds a proper test subject: Bob, The Kill-o-Holic.

Bob is a well known killer, eager and willing to murder people over tiny perceived slights. Bob is also known to have hair trigger temper and also has a deep, deep hatered of Derek's people. In fact bob has been known to go on racist killing sprees just for the fun of it.

However bob is sentimental man with many friends and family he cares deeply about, and loves his hometown. He's a momma's boy sort of genocidal murderer.

One day while bob is visiting his hometown Derek is able to arrange things such that Bob is either restrained or hindered some way that he can directly witness Derek kill, maim and torture 50% of his closest friends and relatives. After this Bob is freed while also armed to teeth, at this same moment he can see that Derek has restrained the remaining 50% of his friends & family surrounded them with tinder, oil and such is about torch them to death. (likely along with most of the dry wooden buildings with straw roofs built closely together in his home town)

Derek then casts Charm Person on Bob, and bob fails is saving throw. Derek says "Hey bob. You're the only one who can stop me right now, but please don't. I assure you no harm will come to you however I am going to go torch all those people, including pickles (pickles being bob's beloved dog). So I would be quite appreciative if you'd just stand aside a safe distances. THaaaaaaanks."

Derek then resumes his movement towards the flammable group of bob's loved ones (including mr. pickles the dog), torch in hand.

What does and/or can bob do?
What is the experience like inside bob's head?
This is actually a rather fascinating example.

Bob cannot harm Derek. He might - maybe - be able to restrain him with a grapple, but that's a sticky question at best. He doesn't know he's Charmed, and he still sees Derek as his friendly acquaintance. He may not trust Derek with his life or anything, but he can't hate the guy. This probably tears him up inside, because he just saw Derek murder his loved ones. And threaten PICKELS, of all things!

He probably strives to rationalize this. Clearly, his buddy Derek is being influenced by something. Maybe this isn't his choice! That must be it. Derek wouldn't do this, after all.

He can't bring himself to harm Derek. But he can't let Derek do this. Derek's his friend, right? At least a little? He clearly wants Bob to stay out of harm's way. He doesn't want to hurt Bob. So...

What I think Bob is most likely to do is throw himself on the would-be pyre and beg Derek to stop. Not only does this line up with what's going on in Bob's head and with the required mechanics, but it has the added appeal of trying to talk sense into Derek. Derek surely won't go through with it if it would burn up Bob, too, right? Bob just has to get through to him! It also happens to make it impossible for Derek to burn Bob's remaining friends and loved ones without harming Bob directly, thus ending the spell.

Now, as for the "please stand out of the way," request, that's probably going to be a hard one even for a "friendly acquaintance," since it requires an ENORMOUS sacrifice. If, somehow, the check succeeded (it does have Advantage, after all), Bob probably would rationalize it as he tries to beg Derek not to go through with it. He only stays out of the way because he's too afraid of getting burned, himself, to get in the way.

[Ruslan]

Bob cannot harm Derek. He might - maybe - be able to restrain him with a grapple, but that's a sticky question at best. Unfortunately, he can't. Grapple is an attack, as the PHB made abundantly clear, and a charmed creature can't attack the charmer.



you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple.

[IShouldntBehere]

This is actually a rather fascinating example.

Bob cannot harm Derek. He might - maybe - be able to restrain him with a grapple, but that's a sticky question at best. He doesn't know he's Charmed, and he still sees Derek as his friendly acquaintance. He may not trust Derek with his life or anything, but he can't hate the guy. This probably tears him up inside, because he just saw Derek murder his loved ones. And threaten PICKELS, of all things!

He probably strives to rationalize this. Clearly, his buddy Derek is being influenced by something. Maybe this isn't his choice! That must be it. Derek wouldn't do this, after all.

He can't bring himself to harm Derek. But he can't let Derek do this. Derek's his friend, right? At least a little? He clearly wants Bob to stay out of harm's way. He doesn't want to hurt Bob. So...

What I think Bob is most likely to do is throw himself on the would-be pyre and beg Derek to stop. Not only does this line up with what's going on in Bob's head and with the required mechanics, but it has the added appeal of trying to talk sense into Derek. Derek surely won't go through with it if it would burn up Bob, too, right? Bob just has to get through to him! It also happens to make it impossible for Derek to burn Bob's remaining friends and loved ones without harming Bob directly, thus ending the spell.

Now, as for the "please stand out of the way," request, that's probably going to be a hard one even for a "friendly acquaintance," since it requires an ENORMOUS sacrifice. If, somehow, the check succeeded (it does have Advantage, after all), Bob probably would rationalize it as he tries to beg Derek not to go through with it. He only stays out of the way because he's too afraid of getting burned, himself, to get in the way.

Some follow up questions:

(Subjectively): Does this kind of effect fit in with your personal picture of how low-level "Charm" magic ought to work on a narrative level. You've done an interesting job of describing a way to parse out the implications of the RAW here. Do you think those implications are reasonable? Is this sort of sub-jedi-mind-trick level of spell something that ought to override every single fiber of a person's being in such extreme situations?

(Speculatively): Do you think the writers at all all considered these kind of extreme edge-cases when writing the spell? In other words would it even be sensible to talk about RAI here, or are we just so far outside the scope of the game's design considerations that talking about what was intended by the rules (not the RAW) is silly? If you don't believe they considered this type of scenario when writing them, do you think the spell would be different if they had? Assume for a moment they were to give a sort of "Tactical Tip" call out to this exact kind of situation do you think it would provide any sort of variant ruling/rule or underscore the relevance of the current RAW.


If the answer to either of the above two scenarios is anything other than roughly "The RAW is on-point on all counts. Great rules", would it be sensible to change these. In other words would it be fair upon suddenly running into this situation, make an on-the-fly exception to the RAW for Bob. Does this answer depending on who is the PC and NPC in this situation (Bob or Derek could each be either).

[Zorku]

Apologies if I seem to be taking a bit of a hard line stance here but I am still finding your statement that you don't consider there to be a difference between convincing someone to do something and drugging them to do it a little hard to process.

Sure, depending on the nature and circumstances of the lie.
Yeesh. Ok, I'm saying that,
1a. How upset somebody would be about being magically charmed,
1b. depends on the circumstances of the charm,
1c. just like when you 'charm' them without magic.

So if you lied, the circumstances of the lie will matter.

Before I do anything to justify those claims, do you understand what claim I am making?


Unless I'm missing something in the rulebook you've made up that rule about the spell having 'expired' rendering it immune to being dispelled. If there is a magical effect outstanding (i.e. the targets hostile feelings towards the caster) that it is subject to Dispel Magic.
That's just not the format of the book. Any time you have a permanent magical effect the book specifies if dispel gets rid of it or if it takes something more heavy duty like greater restoration. That's because those things are exceptions to a spell having a duration and/or requiring concentration, which almost everything in 5e has.

Basically, if the being upset thing was part of the enchantment spell you charmed them with, it would go away at the 1 hour mark when the charm person spell expired.
This is a lot like how you can't dispel the hp loss from a fireball. The fireball spell is already over.


Regardless, we clearly disagree about how the Friends cantrip works as I don't think it is a magical effect
If I understand you correctly, you mean that the after effect of the friends cantrip. I don't think that is a magical effect either, at least not moreso than being dead after a fireball has reduced your hitpoints enough to kill you.


but rather guidance for the DM on how people will react to its casting and that was only really a throwaway line so we can draw a line under that as far as I'm concerned.OK, bigger disagreement here: The authors clearly had the language "knows it has been charmed," as per the spell we are talking about, so they could have structured the friends spell description the same way. "Knows you have magically influenced them." Instead, they took up a lot more space with a phrase that they don't use to explain any other enchantment spells.

Do you have a strong reason to think that it is a throwaway line, or is that just convenient for your argument?


I would point out that fey have historically had a reputation of being tricky and to be avoided for precisely this exact reason.
I'll dispute this claim as well. They have that reputation for reasons that go well beyond charm effects.


We started this conversation with you making the claim that its definately possible for you to repeatedly use charm on a person who you intend to have a long term relationship with.Finite. The root word there is finite.
...
My willpower must be running really low today.


I literally can't think of a situation in which that would be a thing. If you barter with him and get a good deal, well - alls fair in the market place. But lets say you charm a shopkeep to get a better deal. Knowing that, why would he ever deal with you directly again?Let's say you barter with him to cheat him out of a lot of money. Why would he ever deal with you directly again?

Every single time you come up with an example you go straight for things that would be deception and intimidation if done by mundane means. If you think you're really bartering with benign persuasion when you charm person the shopkeep then it should still have been a benign persuasion interaction. If you're cheating him now then that's a different kind of interaction.


He knows he can't trust you not to use magic to manipulate him - he would ban you from his shop or only deal with you through an assistant. He may even spread the word to other shopkeeps.
Scale from 1 to 10: how manipulative is this? Feel free to use a more precise scale if you think you need it.
1: You barter with the shopkeep to secure a 10% discount.
2: You barter with the shopkeep to secure a 10% discount, charm him, then barter to a 20% discount.
3: You charm the shopkeep, then barter with him to a 20% discount.
4: You barter with the shopkeep for a 5% discount, charm him, then barter to a 10% discount.
5: You charm the shopkeep, then barter with him to a 20% discount, then accept 10% instead.
6: You barter with the shopkeep to a 10% discount, charm him, then barter to a 20% discount, then say actually you'll accept 10% after all.
7: You barter with the shopkeep to a 20% discount, then charm him.


Basically, if you are doing something truly in someones best interests you shouldn't need to be charming them in the first place which generally removes any positive argument you could make to explain why you're charming them.If you can't think of any time when a failed social roll stops you from doing something that was in everyone's best interest then you're being needlessly stubborn and you're trying to sneak that damn drug analogy through the back door. There are all kinds of times when an honest and beneficial social interaction is riding on the outcome of dice, and even more where I wouldn't allow the player to make the roll without first doing something like charming a person.


I really don't see why the settings opinion of magic is super relevant here. Obviously if magic is viewed poorly then charm will seem even worse much like any spell, but I'm pretty sure regardless of the setting that no-one likes someone feebleminding them before getting them to sign a legal contract - even if it later turns out there were no loopholes you just wanted to make sure they signed. Feeblemind deals an expected 14 damage, making it blatantly hostile and thus necessitating a fight. If you're trying to compare just the attribute reduction on its own I don't think there's anything in the core rules like that. Still, if you could guarantee a high degree of safety for the duration I could see some high magic settings eventually developing theme parks where you go in with awful stats so that you can experience the displays and performances with the innocence of a child, over and over. There would also probably be some sort of resort for a somewhat longer vacation where you absolutely stop worrying about your work responsibilities.


Honestly in games terms I think we agree on more than we disagree on (I don't think the spell should have automatic penalties as the DM is best positioned to adjudicate and even Friends is left up to the DM with consequences ranging from a frown to hired assassins). There are some massive gulfs we disagree on though which are mostly issues about how morally questionable it is to mess with someones mind and their likely reactions to it - I don't and never will agree with your stated stance on that so I may just step out here and let the thread resume its previous course.
There's some kind of joke to be made here about using charm person on you...
I can't quite piece it together with the right zing though.

[IShouldntBehere]

Scale from 1 to 10: how manipulative is this? Feel free to use a more precise scale if you think you need it.
1: You barter with the shopkeep to secure a 10% discount.
2: You barter with the shopkeep to secure a 10% discount, charm him, then barter to a 20% discount.
3: You charm the shopkeep, then barter with him to a 20% discount.
4: You barter with the shopkeep for a 5% discount, charm him, then barter to a 10% discount.
5: You charm the shopkeep, then barter with him to a 20% discount, then accept 10% instead.
6: You barter with the shopkeep to a 10% discount, charm him, then barter to a 20% discount, then say actually you'll accept 10% after all.
7: You barter with the shopkeep to a 20% discount, then charm him.

1: On a scale of 1-10 (1).
2: On a scale of 1-10 (11).
3: On a scale of 1-10 (11).
4: On a scale of 1-10 (11).
5: On a scale of 1-10 (11).
6: On a scale of 1-10 (11).
7: On a scale of 1-10 (11).

[Vogonjeltz]

Sure...but why would someone react better to having the charm spell cast on them than the friends cantrip? As we've said, the effects of the charm spell are in fact even more profound so if they were angry at you casting the friends cantrip on them they should be equally or more angry at having the charm spell cast on them.

As an aside, the fireball spell doesn't include a rider stating that people turn hostile after you cast it on them but I would be pretty surprised if most people didn't like you much after you threw one in their direction. I don't think you should be reading into the lack of such a rider on the charm spell that people would be totally fine with you casting it on them.

I'm not saying it wouldn't, only that it's not mandated. The exact reaction would be dependent on what the Charmer did/asked them to do.

Also, friends doesn't impose the charmed condition and doesn't work on hostile creatures; so Charm Person works with School of Enchantment abilities like Alter Memories, and by including that line we know it doesn't require the change in attitude.