Does the charmed condition factor in awareness of the character who charmed them?

[holywhippet]

Say a character causes the charmed condition on another character. By the rules the charmed character can't target the person who charmed them with a hostile action. What about if the person who charmed them is turned invisible? Can they still not target them with an AoE attack because somehow they know they will hit the person who charmed them? What about things like alter self spell? Can they not target them even if they don't know who they really are?

[Lunali]

The charmed condition alone does not prevent hitting someone, invisible or not, with AoEs as the target is a spot, not a person. However, it usually comes with other effects like treating the charmer as a friend that would make you unlikely to want to hit them.

As for disguises, I would say they still regard them as someone that charmed them, though they may not recognize them as the same person.

[RSP]

Say a character causes the charmed condition on another character. By the rules the charmed character can't target the person who charmed them with a hostile action. What about if the person who charmed them is turned invisible? Can they still not target them with an AoE attack because somehow they know they will hit the person who charmed them? What about things like alter self spell? Can they not target them even if they don't know who they really are?

Not sure you’ll find a RAW about this but if I’m DMing:

- the magic is prevalent through disguises, so Alter Self wouldn’t stop it. That is, you think the caster is a good friend you want to help. If they disappear and now a different person is before you, you think they too are a good friend and you’re likely to help them out. Doesn’t change the “cant target them rule.

- invisibility wouldn’t change anything either, however, if the caster is hidden (as opposed to just being invisible), I wouldn’t let the target know where they are to not attack them, but I would enforce common sense. That is, if the target believed the caster was somewhere, then they wouldn’t be able to target that area.

[holywhippet]

The charmed condition alone does not prevent hitting someone, invisible or not, with AoEs as the target is a spot, not a person. However, it usually comes with other effects like treating the charmer as a friend that would make you unlikely to want to hit them.

So you can drop a fireball on the head of someone who has charmed you? I wasn't sure if you could since, unlike the sanctuary spell, it doesn't seem to specifically state that to be the case.

[JNAProductions]

So you can drop a fireball on the head of someone who has charmed you? I wasn't sure if you could since, unlike the sanctuary spell, it doesn't seem to specifically state that to be the case.

By finagly RAW... Maybe?

By RAI, hell no. And good luck finding a DM who'd let you.

[sophontteks]

Depends on what caused the charmed condition. Most charm spells and abilities also change the targets attitude.

[holywhippet]

OK, maybe not directly on the head of whoever charmed your character, but can you include someone who charmed your character in an AoE like fireball?

[Kane0]

You’re charmed. You don’t want to harm them. Dropping a fireball with them in the area would harm them.
So no.

[ad_hoc]

What about if the person who charmed them is turned invisible? Can they still not target them with an AoE attack because somehow they know they will hit the person who charmed them?


OK, maybe not directly on the head of whoever charmed your character, but can you include someone who charmed your character in an AoE like fireball?

Yes. If you are charmed by someone and you don't know they're there, you can still fireball the area to hit other enemies. The charmer will be hit, but the charmed didn't know any better.

So, if you're going to charm someone, let them know where you are.

[mephnick]

Yes. If you are charmed by someone and you don't know they're there, you can still fireball the area to hit other enemies. The charmer will be hit, but the charmed didn't know any better.


Only if you start Fireballing invisible or hidden PC allies as well.

[ad_hoc]

Only if you start Fireballing invisible or hidden PC allies as well.

If the charmer tells you where they are then you wouldn't do it.

The condition doesn't compel you to act when you don't know where the charmer is.

If an NPC ally joins the fray but doesn't tell the party they have shown up, then yeah a PC might fireball them.

[BurgerBeast]

I interpret the spell as though the person who is charmed is compelled to treat the charmer favourably, but does not otherwise gain any perceptual abilities, and does not have their personality otherwise affected.

So, yes, a charmed person could drop a fireball in an area where the charmer happens to be, so long as the charmee does not know the charmer is there. (This means the spell doesn’t prescribe anything and it’s the DM’s call, based on the rest of the spell description.)

If the charmee thinks the charmer might be in the AOE, then strictly speaking the charmee does not know that the charmer is definitely there. Then this would come down to personality - something like how reckless the charmee is. If the charmee is someone who wouldn’t usually hesitate to risk the life of a loved one to end a particular degree of threat, then they might be willing to take that risk. It becomes a judgment call for the DM. This can get tricky if you have a player who tries to metagame, obviously, but that’s the risk that is always inherent to the game.

I also interpret the spell to mean that if the charmee knows that the charmer is in the AOE, then even if the charmee is a person who frequently rains down fireballs on friend and enemy alike some of the time, he still can not do it. That’s the effect of the spell. That’s effectively a tangible manifestation of the strength of the magical compulsion.

So I interpret “know” to mean that you truly expect your action to cause definite harm. In such cases, the spell prevents you from acting. In any other case, it’s the DM’s call.

[Lunali]

OK, maybe not directly on the head of whoever charmed your character, but can you include someone who charmed your character in an AoE like fireball?

If the charmed condition is the only effect, yes. The problem is that spells that cause the charmed condition also cause the target to treat the charmer differently. If the charmed person would normally try to avoid catching friendly acquaintances and trusted friends in their fireballs, they will try to avoid catching the charmer in them as well.

[MaxWilson]

If the charmed condition is the only effect, yes. The problem is that spells that cause the charmed condition also cause the target to treat the charmer differently.

Not always. Not even often, in 5E. See Geas, Hypnotic Pattern, Warlock's Create Thrall ability (by RAW--it deserves to be housedruled otherwise). Target is charmed but there is no attitude adjustment.

[sophontteks]

Not always. Not even often, in 5E. See Geas, Hypnotic Pattern, Warlock's Create Thrall ability (by RAW--it deserves to be housedruled otherwise). Target is charmed but there is no attitude adjustment.
Hypnotic pattern- makes the creature dazed, so they wouldn't attack the person who charmed them. I can't think of any way around this.

Geas- makes the creature take damage if it disobeys your commands. No change in personality I think is fitting. Its being coerced into obeying against its will and would happily drop a fireball in your area if it can get away with it.

Create Thrall- Not a fitting name for the effect. I think they dropped the ball on this one. The charmed condition is very weak on its own. I agree that it needs homebrew to work as intended. No attitude adjustment breaks it.

Personally I think the worst charm spell in the game award goes to Enthrall- No attitude adjustment and it doesn't give the charmed condition. And literally all it does is give them disadvantage on perception. Depending on how DMs rule spellcasting, the spell may be completely useless. Without a charm effect or an attitude adjustment, the creatures would be aware a spell is being cast and just attack. Nothing the spell does stops them from doing this. And this is a Level 2 spell!!! What were they thinking!?!?

[MaxWilson]

Geas-[/B] makes the creature take damage if it disobeys your commands. No change in personality I think is fitting. Its being coerced into obeying against its will and would happily drop a fireball in your area if it can get away with it.

A small amount of damage once per day. The fact that it can't attack you even if it's in no danger of damage for 24 more hours is a separate thing, and arguably the more valuable part of the spell.

Beholder Charm eye is another example of charm with no attitude adjustment.

Note that Hypnotic Pattern doesn't prevent social interaction like speaking so the charm effect's advantage on Persuasion/Insight/etc. social checks is still relevant, e.g . for an interrogation.

I feel like the best way for a DM to roleplay charm sans attitude adjustment is just "fascination". Not necessarily friendly interest, but definitely preoccupation. Can't hardly take their eyes off you no matter which way they turn their head, etc. The latest Mission Impossible has a good example of this in how the White Widow stares at Ethan Hunt practically every moment she's on screen. To me, that's charm.

[Louro]

Charm is really really powerfull. Not on the battlefield, but can be campaign-breaking when used smartly.

[MaxWilson]

Charm is really really powerfull. Not on the battlefield, but can be campaign-breaking when used smartly.

No more so than Persuasion Expertise or Enhance Ability or Lucky.

[Louro]

Oh yep, I forgot this is 5e, where everything has to have an associated number or mechanic, so players/DMs who lack imagination don't get lost.

Can't believe people nowadays are ruling "command" as if you had to chant some magical words before the actual command rather than issuing the order directly.

[lperkins2]

So, I'd let a character fireball the charmer, if the charmer was invisible (or not), so long as a strong case could be made that it wouldn't be significantly against the interest of the charmer. Things like the charmer being surrounded by dangerous enemies and having evasion, or fire resistance come to mind.

But to answer what I think is the spirit of the question, no, the charmed condition in general, and the charm person spell in particular do not give special knowledge about the position of the charmer. If the charmer is out of line of sight, you wouldn't fire blind to try to hit them, since they are your friend, but you might catch them by accident while trying to hit others.

Disguise spells and abilities are another matter. It would depend on the particulars of the disguise, if it specifies that it magically alters your identity such that spells like scrying fail, and it's a higher level spell than the enthrall, then I'd have the charmed condition not apply, unless they watch the spell being applied or otherwise know it's the caster.

[RSP]

Oh yep, I forgot this is 5e, where everything has to have an associated number or mechanic, so players/DMs who lack imagination don't get lost.

Can't believe people nowadays are ruling "command" as if you had to chant some magical words before the actual command rather than issuing the order directly.

Well that is what the rules call for. Why would you think the V component doesn’t apply to Command?

[sophontteks]

Oh yep, I forgot this is 5e, where everything has to have an associated number or mechanic, so players/DMs who lack imagination don't get lost.

Can't believe people nowadays are ruling "command" as if you had to chant some magical words before the actual command rather than issuing the order directly.
I think you mean 3.5. We are talking about attitude adjustments which have no numbers associated with them. This entire converation has to do with mechanics without nunbers.

I agree that its BS, but the Author of 5e went out of his way to note that verbal components are literally one chanting before actually making the command, even though this ruling straight up breaks spells like enthrall. Worse, they did a poll and most felt that this chanting has to be extremely obnoxious, noticable, and loud for some reason. Again, this really hurts charms.


Well that is what the rules call for. Why would you think the V component doesn’t apply to Command?
The V should be the command. If you can't speak, you can't command. Ruins the immersion a bit with many spells like this that have verbal requirements in the description.

[Louro]

I think you mean 3.5. We are talking about attitude adjustments which have no numbers associated with them. This entire converation has to do with mechanics without nunbers.

I agree that its BS, but the Author of 5e went out of his way to note that verbal components are literally one chanting before actually making the command, even though this ruling straight up breaks spells like enthrall. Worse, they did a poll and most felt that this chanting has to be extremely obnoxious, noticable, and loud for some reason. Again, this really hurts charms.

HEY EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME, I'M ABOUT TO CAST A SPELL!!!
It makes no sense.
I guess most people voted way that because they don't want their combats "interrupted".
Did the author say command actually needs some chanting?
Because this makes the message cantrip totally useless/stupid.

[sophontteks]

HEY EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME, I'M ABOUT TO CAST A SPELL!!!
It makes no sense.
I guess most people voted way that because they don't want their combats "interrupted".
Did the author say command actually needs some chanting?
Because this makes the message cantrip totally useless/stupid.
Yep.
Not specifically command, but they ruled a similiar spell.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/12/suggestion-spell-component/amp/

And yeah. The ruling is balanced for suggestion aaaand breaks at least a half-dozen other spells...

This is why I just play sorcerers now.

[Louro]

I rule those spells without chanting, because my NPCs are not retarded.
If someone starts mystic chanting in the middle of a conversation they will get mad (at the very least). First it's disrespectful, and secondly most of them know magic is dangerous and tricky.

- Don't you think you should go home?
- Nah, I'm fine. Another beer please!
- ABRACADABRA BABIDI BIBI...
- WTF u doing dude? Get away from me u witch!

[Lunali]

I rule those spells without chanting, because my NPCs are not retarded.
If someone starts mystic chanting in the middle of a conversation they will get mad (at the very least). First it's disrespectful, and secondly most of them know magic is dangerous and tricky.

- Don't you think you should go home?
- Nah, I'm fine. Another beer please!
- ABRACADABRA BABIDI BIBI...
- WTF u doing dude? Get away from me u witch!

Well either the characters are chanting the spell or they have to give the command with a particular pitch and resonance that makes it obvious that they're casting a spell anyway. Also, in 5e while it is relatively easy to identify that someone is casting a spell, it is almost impossible to stop them once they've started.

[Louro]

"particular pitch and resonance" doesn't mean everyone realizes it's a spell automatically. Could just be fancy talking (or drunked, or a foreign accent...)
At least I think the manuals only say you need to chant and do some weird gestures, nothing about everyone inmediatly realising the casting.

And yep, besides counterspell and a readied attack causing concentration loss not much you can do to stop a spell.
Illusions are your friend! Cast a readied illusory wall in the face of the caster and suddenly he has no target. Although the ready action is... just bad.

[Lunali]

And yep, besides counterspell and a readied attack causing concentration loss not much you can do to stop a spell.
Illusions are your friend! Cast a readied illusory wall in the face of the caster and suddenly he has no target. Although the ready action is... just bad.

Readied attack goes off after the action that provoked it, in this case the spell, same with mage slayer opportunity attack, good for spells with durations, not so much for instant ones, and if the spell is charm, you won't be able to target the caster.

[Thrudd]

So you can drop a fireball on the head of someone who has charmed you? I wasn't sure if you could since, unlike the sanctuary spell, it doesn't seem to specifically state that to be the case.

By accident? Yes, you can accidentally drop a fireball on hidden people, assuming you don't know they are there, and you are targeting some other enemy. If the charmer is dumb enough to hide next to creatures you are attacking, they deserve it.

Will I let your character randomly throw fireballs around in empty areas, because technically you can't target them but you (the player) know they must be there somewhere? Absolutely not, that is a clear violation of the spirit of the game. The character doesn't want to hurt the charmer, and you can't use rule loopholes regarding spell-targeting to do so. The character has no explainable reason to cast fireballs without a target, and any excuse you could come up with to just happen to land where you think the invisible charmer was would be obviously contrived and lame.

[Tanarii]

Lots of people extrapolating here. The charmed condition itself doesn't say anything about not wanting to hurt the charmer. All it says is you can't attack them, nor target them with harmful magical effects. They may very much want to hurt the charmer. Forced magical compulsion that has no requirement related to wanting means there's no reason to think the in-game charmed character won't try to loophole their way out of it with any in-universe loophole they can find.

That said, this doesn't seem like a loophole that should work to say "but I didn't target the creature just the space", especially when Fireball says "a target takes 8d6 damage". Certainly a better DM using on this, since the word "target" is not precise in 5e, would be to go with: if you know where they are, you can't include them in the effect.

[Boci]

Lots of people extrapolating here. The charmed condition itself doesn't say anything about not wanting to hurt the charmer. All it says is you can't attack them, nor target them with harmful magical effects. They may very much want to hurt the charmer. Forced magical compulsion that has no requirement related to wanting means there's no reason to think the in-game charmed character won't try to loophole their way out of it with any in-universe loophole they can find.

The fact that charmed also gives advantage on charisma checks agaisnt the creatures implies that there is indeed something at play on the target's emotions. I don't think charm is meant to be forced magical compulsion, but rather a more subtle influence on a creature.

[Louro]

Readied attack goes off after the action that provoked it, in this case the spell, same with mage slayer opportunity attack, good for spells with durations, not so much for instant ones, and if the spell is charm, you won't be able to target the caster.
That's wrong. Ready is already pretty bad as it is, no need to make it utterly xit.
"As soon as I see the wizard starts casting I shoot him" should give you the chance to interrupt the casting.
I like my players having options rather than having only one option.

How would you rule "I shoot the archer if he shoots me"?
Have I to wait for his arrow to hit me or can I shoot when I see him pulling an arrow from the quiver or pulling the string?
It's not a videogame. Don't play it like a videogame.

[Boci]

How would you rule "I shoot the archer if he shoots me"?
Have I to wait for his arrow to hit me or can I shoot when I see him pulling an arrow from the quiver or pulling the string?
It's not a videogame. Don't play it like a videogame.

Its a bit funny you saying "don't play it like a video game" and then assume the archer takes time to line their shot up and give you amble time to shoot first. By the time you realize the archer is shooting at you, the arrow has already been fired, they don't pause to give the enemy a chance to shoot first.

[Louro]

The archer is acting on his turn. You have already acted, your bow is already loaded and you are watching him. Pretty reasonable I think.
Shooting an arrow is faster than pulling an arrow, loading it and shooting it.

[Tanarii]

The fact that charmed also gives advantage on charisma checks agaisnt the creatures implies that there is indeed something at play on the target's emotions. I don't think charm is meant to be forced magical compulsion, but rather a more subtle influence on a creature.
Not really. I mean kind of. Im not denying it can't play on emotions by compelling you, just that the compulsion is very specific.

For example, a hostile creature is still hostile. You just get advantage on your charisma checks vs them. That means you are more likely to be able to talk them out of actively opposing you (see DMG table). But they still are hostile.

Similarly, you may not be able to think of completing an action when it's going to harm the charmer. But that doesn't mean you don't want to. Or possibly you want to, but that wanting to it suddenly overridden right as you try to take an action that isn't part of a loophole.

Lots of possible ways for it to work in-universe. Not just one.

Edit: reminder that I don't think "not targeting" via AoEs is a loophole. Or rather, that it's a weak basis for claiming one. I'm just arguing about the nature of the charmed condition here. :smallwink:

[Boci]

The archer is acting on his turn. You have already acted, your bow is already loaded and you are watching him. Pretty reasonable I think.
Shooting an arrow is faster than pulling an arrow, loading it and shooting it.

But the you specified "shoots me". So the fact that the archer has to pull out an arrow and load it is irelevant. You watch them load, but you're not acting yet. You only get to act when they turn the arrow on you, by which point its too late because the enemy doesn't say "Of, I see you have a trigger to resolve, I'll just wait until that's done before proceeding", you can only fire back after the attack is resolved.


Not really. I mean kind of. Im not denying it can't play on emotions by compelling you, just that the compulsion is very specific.

For example, a hostile creature is still hostile. You just get advantage on your charisma checks vs them. That means you are more likely to be able to talk them out of actively opposing you (see DMG table). But they still are hostile.

"I hate that orc shaman, but their spell is preventing me from slashing their face" open is understandable.

"I hate that orc shaman, but their spell is making me agree with their point. I should go back home and argue against military intervention into the orc's mountains" is a lot jankier to fluff and would work much better if charm was a subtle influence.

[Tanarii]

"I hate that orc shaman, but their spell is making me agree with their point. I should go back home and argue against military intervention into the orc's mountains" is a lot jankier to fluff and would work much better if charm was a subtle influence.Thats out of the range of guidelines for possibilities of what you can persuade a hostile creature to do. Unless your DM ignores the guidelines, or extrapolates the guidelines table. The best you can shoot for is "The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved." Even if it's extrapolated "minor risk or sacrifice" should be DC 30.

Even so, not sure why that's harder to fluff as magical compulsion. By subtle, do you mean "the target isn't aware of it"? If so, I kinda take your point.

[Boci]

Thats out of the range of guidelines for possibilities of what you can persuade a hostile creature to do. Unless your DM ignores the guidelines, or extrapolates the guidelines table. The best you can shoot for is "The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved."

Why is arguing against military intervention risky? If no one else is, sure, but if opinion is already split with advocates on both sides, why would it be considered risky?


Even so, not sure why that's harder to fluff as magical compulsion. By subtle, do you mean "the target isn't aware of it"? If so, I kinda take your point.

Its just janky. "I hate that orc, but I bet they're not lying because of the spell they cast on me" is another really awkward situation to fluff.

[RSP]

HEY EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME, I'M ABOUT TO CAST A SPELL!!!
It makes no sense.
I guess most people voted way that because they don't want their combats "interrupted".
Did the author say command actually needs some chanting?
Because this makes the message cantrip totally useless/stupid.



The V should be the command. If you can't speak, you can't command. Ruins the immersion a bit with many spells like this that have verbal requirements in the description.

No. You cast the spell and then issue the command. The V is needed to cast the spell; it’s not the word spoken as the command.

Someone casts a spell (that is, the V or S component), then the spell’s effect, including uttering the word that is the command (such as “flee”), happens. Two separate and distinct things. You can Counterspell the spell during the casting (the V and/or S portion), but you can’t wait until you hear what the command is and then decide you want to counter: it’s already done.

Modify Memory shows this even better: it’s a 1 Action casting time (the V and S only occurs then), followed by up to a minute of talking to the target to describe new memories. The casting (V and S) is separate from the words spoken as part of the spell effect (creating the false memories). You can Counterspell during the casting (the V ans S) but not during the describing of the new memories, because the casting is done at that point, just like Command.

Further, ignoring these V components means you’re essentially giving everyone Subtle Spell metamagic for free.

[RSP]

How would you rule "I shoot the archer if he shoots me"?
Have I to wait for his arrow to hit me or can I shoot when I see him pulling an arrow from the quiver or pulling the string?
It's not a videogame. Don't play it like a videogame.

The trigger of “if he shoots me” requires that you have already been shot by the archer, so Ready wouldn’t interrupt the archer targeting you or firing at you. Technically, the archer can shoot at you and you would not get your Ready Action unless he also hits you. A miss is not you being shot.

[Lunali]

The archer is acting on his turn. You have already acted, your bow is already loaded and you are watching him. Pretty reasonable I think.
Shooting an arrow is faster than pulling an arrow, loading it and shooting it.

Are you waiting for him to shoot or are you waiting for him to do something else? If he readies the same action as you, will you shoot?

[Thrudd]

Its just janky. "I hate that orc, but I bet they're not lying because of the spell they cast on me" is another really awkward situation to fluff.
I think it's more like "hey, I like that guy for some reason. He's cool." And then if the guy chats with you, you're more likely to accept what he's saying. It just seems reasonable, and why would he lie to you? You're his friend. You don't remember why he's your friend or where you met him, but you know he's super cool and you like him. (That's why they get advantage on charisma checks, and why you won't target them with harmful effects.) After the spell wears off, you're like "heyyyy, waitaminute! That guy cast a spell on me! He was never my friend! Grrr"

[Tanarii]

I think it's more like "hey, I like that guy for some reason. He's cool." And then if the guy chats with you, you're more likely to accept what he's saying. It just seems reasonable, and why would he lie to you? You're his friend.
This is true for Charm Person specifically. But not for the Charmed condition generally.

For example, if you cast Crown of Madness on a hostile creature it becomes charmed. If you make a social check against it, you get advantage. But it doesn't stop being hostile. Nor is it necessarily unaware its been enchanted. (It's more of a combat spell, but that doesn't mean it cannot be used out of combat, within its limitations.)

[Thrudd]

This is true for Charm Person specifically. But not for the Charmed condition generally.

For example, if you cast Crown of Madness on a hostile creature it becomes charmed. If you make a social check against it, you get advantage. But it doesn't stop being hostile. Nor is it necessarily unaware its been enchanted. (It's more of a combat spell, but that doesn't mean it cannot be used out of combat, within its limitations.)

Then each source of the charmed condition must describe how it works differently- because the mechanics of the condition don't describe enough to express narratively.

[Louro]

If you could just think outside the rules.
Rules are meant to represent "reality". They are NOT the reality. Adapt to fit the situation, avoid the videogame, encourage your players to be creative and smart.

"I shoot the archer if he pulls another arrow from his quiver". Two arrows crossing midair and hitting their targets simultaneously. Yeah, simultaneously, a concept that doesn't exist in 5e. But cool right?

You can rule command as you wish, like having to shout and dance before the order if you like.
But issuing the command directly is much more cool. Like in fantasy movies.
And opens a few more options for its use.

[Boci]

This is true for Charm Person specifically. But not for the Charmed condition generally.

For example, if you cast Crown of Madness on a hostile creature it becomes charmed. If you make a social check against it, you get advantage. But it doesn't stop being hostile. Nor is it necessarily unaware its been enchanted. (It's more of a combat spell, but that doesn't mean it cannot be used out of combat, within its limitations.)

But you still have advantage on deception checks against it. So its hostile, but also more likely to trust and believe you?

What's the payoff for charmed for charmed creatures still being hostile, especially when they cannot take harmful actions against the caster? What has the game gained by you clarifying this as oppose to treating them as not hostile for the duration of the charm?

[RSP]

If you could just think outside the rules.
Rules are meant to represent "reality". They are NOT the reality. Adapt to fit the situation, avoid the videogame, encourage your players to be creative and smart.

"I shoot the archer if he pulls another arrow from his quiver". Two arrows crossing midair and hitting their targets simultaneously. Yeah, simultaneously, a concept that doesn't exist in 5e. But cool right?

You can rule command as you wish, like having to shout and dance before the order if you like.
But issuing the command directly is much more cool. Like in fantasy movies.
And opens a few more options for its use.

“I shoot the archer if he pulls another arrow...” is a different trigger than “I shoot the archer if he shoots me,” and will have different circumstances for when one can get their Ready Action.

As for Command, it’s not us ruling it as we wish, it’s how the rules state the spell is. By all means, you can houserule otherwise, but the way I described it is the RAW. Again, feel free to play it differently, but understand you’re the one ruling off RAW (which again is fine if it works for you). I personally equate this to just giving everyone Darkvision, or just giving everyone Battlemaster maneuvers: you’re weakening the Sorcerer by allowing everyone and everyone to use Subtle metamagic, but again, this is just my opinion.

I mean it’s cool if every character gets 3 Attacks a turn, but I’m not going to houserule that in because it’s cool.

[Louro]

“I shoot the archer if he pulls another arrow...” is a different trigger than “I shoot the archer if he shoots me,” and will have different circumstances for when one can get their Ready Action.

As for Command, it’s not us ruling it as we wish, it’s how the rules state the spell is. By all means, you can houserule otherwise, but the way I described it is the RAW. Again, feel free to play it differently, but understand you’re the one ruling off RAW (which again is fine if it works for you). I personally equate this to just giving everyone Darkvision, or just giving everyone Battlemaster maneuvers: you’re weakening the Sorcerer by allowing everyone and everyone to use Subtle metamagic, but again, this is just my opinion.

I mean it’s cool if every character gets 3 Attacks a turn, but I’m not going to houserule that in because it’s cool.

Do you enjoy playing computer games? I do.
But when I play tabletop I'm expecting it to not be the same as a computer game. I expect to be able to use my imagination. When rules collide with imagination, rule zero says imagination prevails.

Tabletop rpgs are not meant to be played by RAW. RAW are just guidelines which you are encouraged to follow when they fit, and to alter to make them fit better the game flavour.

I'm not allowing everyone to use subtle metamagic for free, I just give them the option to be smart about how they cast their spells. Following your belobed RAW there is no way someone can cast a spell on a tavern, besides the sorcerer, which I think is a bit unfair for every other spellcaster. Sorcerers being better enchanters than bards and enchantment specialists? Me don't like, players don't like.

No, 3 attacks per turn is not cool. Its just a number.

[Lunali]

I'm not allowing everyone to use subtle metamagic for free, I just give them the option to be smart about how they cast their spells. Following your belobed RAW there is no way someone can cast a spell on a tavern, besides the sorcerer, which I think is a bit unfair for every other spellcaster. Sorcerers being better enchanters than bards and enchantment specialists? Me don't like, players don't like.

Bards are dabblers, sorcerers should be better at it than them. As for sorcerers vs enchanters, a sorc may be able to charm someone in a crowd without others noticing, but an enchanter can charm someone without the charmed person noticing. Also, if there is a crowd, the enchanter could still get away with it, he just needs a suitable distraction.

[RSP]

Do you enjoy playing computer games? I do.
But when I play tabletop I'm expecting it to not be the same as a computer game. I expect to be able to use my imagination. When rules collide with imagination, rule zero says imagination prevails.

Tabletop rpgs are not meant to be played by RAW. RAW are just guidelines which you are encouraged to follow when they fit, and to alter to make them fit better the game flavour.

I'm not allowing everyone to use subtle metamagic for free, I just give them the option to be smart about how they cast their spells. Following your belobed RAW there is no way someone can cast a spell on a tavern, besides the sorcerer, which I think is a bit unfair for every other spellcaster. Sorcerers being better enchanters than bards and enchantment specialists? Me don't like, players don't like.

No, 3 attacks per turn is not cool. Its just a number.

Playing within the rules, and being clever about how you play, is more fun than just saying “oh, it’s more fun if we don’t abide by rules and anyone can do anything so long as they say ‘it’s more fun this way.’” For example, in you tavern example, the Bard could cast a spell covertly by putting it in a story he’s telling: by pretending the V components are a quote in a foreign language and hiding the S component within a stage-magician-esque flourish is more fun, and more clever, then just “hey I don’t like this rule because I want my character to be more powerful than the rules say he should be; the limits imposed on his reality shaping Magic really bums me out; rather than play with and around them, just get rid of them, okay? Thanks.”

Again, same as I’d want more creative solutions than “how about I get 5 Attacks instead of just 2” out of the Fighter.

That’s not “turning a table top rpg into a computer game” it’s just being clever within the rules. The “rules collide with imagination” literally the entire game, that’s what an rpg is: your imagination within the structure of rules (as opposed to every player just saying “I cut off the dragon’s head, killing it in one stroke!” in the absence of rules on attacking and damaging creatures).

Your table apparently enjoys voiding rules rather than clever solutions to them. Cool. But don’t tell me it’s unfair that Sorcerers get a unique ability; every other caster gets their own perks too. Do you give all casters the spells known of a Wizard? Do you give all casters Bard’s Magical Secrets? Because not doing so, while allowing the Bard and Wizard free Subtle Spell is unfair to the Sorcerer.

[Louro]

Bards are dabblers.
I don't agree with this, nor the PHB does.
"The bard is a master of song, speech, and the magic they contain"


Playing within the rules, and being clever about how you play, is more fun than just saying “oh, it’s more fun if we don’t abide by rules and anyone can do anything so long as they say ‘it’s more fun this way.’” For example, in you tavern example, the Bard could cast a spell covertly by putting it in a story he’s telling: by pretending the V components are a quote in a foreign language and hiding the S component within a stage-magician-esque flourish is more fun, and more clever.”
That's smart. But read again what I wrote, cause I say we change rules because of flavour, not power.
Command was a single word since AD&D, and that fits the flavour of such spell way better than uttering chants and then the command.
Power word kill would be another nice example:
- The wizard points his finger at your and shouts: DIE!!! Roll for your life.
I can't do that if the wizard need to chant before the "die".
This was a very flamboyant use of command back in AD&D.


That’s not “turning a table top rpg into a computer game” it’s just being clever within the rules. The “rules collide with imagination” literally the entire game, that’s what an rpg is: your imagination within the structure of rules (as opposed to every player just saying “I cut off the dragon’s head, killing it in one stroke!” in the absence of rules on attacking and damaging creatures).
Camon, just check this very forum. It's like a videogame for most people.
And I have played at tables without a single collision between flavour and rules. Guess why? Yeah, no flavour.


Your table apparently enjoys voiding rules rather than clever solutions to them. Cool. But don’t tell me it’s unfair that Sorcerers get a unique ability; every other caster gets their own perks too. Do you give all casters the spells known of a Wizard? Do you give all casters Bard’s Magical Secrets? Because not doing so, while allowing the Bard and Wizard free Subtle Spell is unfair to the Sorcerer.
That's your (wrong) interpretation of my words. Add my poor English there also.
I just rule that some charming spells don't need the abracadabra chanting. Even with that change sorceres still have a very unique ability (casting spells without revealing themselves).

[Tanarii]

But you still have advantage on deception checks against it. So its hostile, but also more likely to trust and believe you?

What's the payoff for charmed for charmed creatures still being hostile, especially when they cannot take harmful actions against the caster? What has the game gained by you clarifying this as oppose to treating them as not hostile for the duration of the charm?
The mechanical payoff is:
- if they are changed to indifferent, that's the equivalent of a +10 to Cha checks for the duration, on top of the advantage.
- if they are changed to friendly, that's the equivalent of +20 to Cha checks, on top of advantage.

It's a massive game difference in what the spell can accomplish if you also have it change the creatures attitude from hostile to either indifferent or friendly, as opposed to just give advantage on social checks.

Also, hostile != will try to attack and kill you. That's just a subset of all hostile creatures.