Would Charm Person at will break stuff at level 8?

[ChudoJogurt]

Pretty much subj.
Trying to fix up a certain homebrew. Would having an ability to cast Charm Person as Su ability (thus without Verbal and Somatic Components), be gamebreaking?
It feels that it shouldn't because it's 1st level spell, so at the same time a sorc could cast it like 50 times, but on the other hand, it's a notoriously finicky spell that has been known to cause disagreements about how potent the effect is.

[Gruftzwerg]

Pretty much subj.
Trying to fix up a certain homebrew. Would having an ability to cast Charm Person as Su ability (thus without Verbal and Somatic Components), be gamebreaking?
It feels that it shouldn't because it's 1st level spell, so at the same time a sorc could cast it like 50 times, but on the other hand, it's a notoriously finicky spell that has been known to cause disagreements about how potent the effect is.

Yes and No.. depending on your point of view:

Lets compare it to a warlock's Charm Person invocation (SLA) at will.

The warlock can access his sla at lvl 6.

The SLA keeps the same formula for the DC, but the SU does not. SU have the following formula:

10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s ability modifier (usually Charisma)

That would mean already a free +3 increase in the DC at lvl 8 and it will sole get stronger.

Keep in mind that the scaling increases the power level a lot. This might lead to abuse. It's not entirely gamebreaking, but imho very close. If the PC spams an abuses the ability, it might get problematic to DM it. I mean, many people are already annoyed by the warlock's at will abilities, just saying.. ^^


edit:
forgot the say that SU also bypass "Spellresistance". Another point of added power compared to a warlock's Charm Person invocation/sla.

__

I made a TO: shadowcraft warlock build a while ago. There I argued that "inherit" ain't defined in 3.5 and warlocks call out their abilities as "inherit" and thus qualify for Supernatural Transformation. But that is something I regard as TO and I don't advertise to play/rule so at your table for the reasons mentioned. That is TO and not a play advice.
But if your table plays at high optimization lvls, it could be OK since it is not entirely game-breaking as said..
It depends on what you consider OK or Broken.

edit2: Regarding the potency of Charm Persons effect:
The target considers you as "friendly". Have a look at the Diplomacy skill (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm):
Friendly
means: Wishes you well
possible actions: Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate

To prevent abuse just have a look at the next step "helpful" to see where the PC crosses a line with his attempts to influence the PC.

Charm Person ain't Suggestions!

[Darg]

A warlock's charm invocation has a spell level equivalent of 4th. At 8th level the Su and invocation are at the same level for DC.

Anyways, if having the ability at will is a problem, give the same limitation as the invocation. That said, even on a successful saving throw the target knows they were the target of a magical effect. So when the effect ends they'll be able to reflect on what happened and possibly easily conclude that they had been manipulated. It's also not like charm is powerful enough to get characters to turn on other characters they are on good terms with. It only turns them friendly toward only the caster.

[Crake]

Yes and No.. depending on your point of view:

Lets compare it to a warlock's Charm Person invocation (SLA) at will.

The warlock can access his sla at lvl 6.

The SLA keeps the same formula for the DC, but the SU does not. SU have the following formula:

10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s ability modifier (usually Charisma)

That would mean already a free +3 increase in the DC at lvl 8 and it will sole get stronger.

Keep in mind that the scaling increases the power level a lot. This might lead to abuse. It's not entirely gamebreaking, but imho very close. If the PC spams an abuses the ability, it might get problematic to DM it. I mean, many people are already annoyed by the warlock's at will abilities, just saying.. ^^


edit:
forgot the say that SU also bypass "Spellresistance". Another point of added power compared to a warlock's Charm Person invocation/sla.

__

I made a TO: shadowcraft warlock build a while ago. There I argued that "inherit" ain't defined in 3.5 and warlocks call out their abilities as "inherit" and thus qualify for Supernatural Transformation. But that is something I regard as TO and I don't advertise to play/rule so at your table for the reasons mentioned. That is TO and not a play advice.
But if your table plays at high optimization lvls, it could be OK since it is not entirely game-breaking as said..
It depends on what you consider OK or Broken.

edit2: Regarding the potency of Charm Persons effect:
The target considers you as "friendly". Have a look at the Diplomacy skill (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm):
Friendly
means: Wishes you well
possible actions: Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate

To prevent abuse just have a look at the next step "helpful" to see where the PC crosses a line with his attempts to influence the PC.

Charm Person ain't Suggestions!

Keep in mind, since this is homebrew the DM can set the charm DC to 11+cha mod, the 10+half hd+cha mod formula is “unless otherwise noted”.

The thing that really sets an Su ability apart is the fact that a) theres NO outward signal (even SLAs have some moment of focus and concentrating that allows an AoO) and more importantly b) theres no supernatural signal. That is to say, the hostile tingle you feel when you pass the save of a spell (and thus also SLA), that rule doesnt apply to supernatural abilities, so they can spam their charm on people with literally no consequences.

My suggestion? Give it a 24 hour immunity of the target succeeds.

[Gruftzwerg]

A warlock's charm invocation has a spell level equivalent of 4th. At 8th level the Su and invocation are at the same level for DC.
Oh yeah, totally missed the different spell lvl DC for invocations..



Anyways, if having the ability at will is a problem, give the same limitation as the invocation. That said, even on a successful saving throw the target knows they were the target of a magical effect. So when the effect ends they'll be able to reflect on what happened and possibly easily conclude that they had been manipulated. It's also not like charm is powerful enough to get characters to turn on other characters they are on good terms with. It only turns them friendly toward only the caster.

This. As I said, Charm Person ain't Suggestion nor Dominate.

edit:

Keep in mind, since this is homebrew the DM can set the charm DC to 11+cha mod, the 10+half hd+cha mod formula is “unless otherwise noted”.

The thing that really sets an Su ability apart is the fact that a) theres NO outward signal (even SLAs have some moment of focus and concentrating that allows an AoO) and more importantly b) theres no supernatural signal. That is to say, the hostile tingle you feel when you pass the save of a spell (and thus also SLA), that rule doesnt apply to supernatural abilities, so they can spam their charm on people with literally no consequences.

My suggestion? Give it a 24 hour immunity of the target succeeds.

Yeah, the DM could make an exception to make it an SU with an allowed a save roll.

At the OP: Why it has to be an SU and not an at will SLA? Is there any reason other than more powerful?^^

I mean, as an at will SLA it is still powerful enough.

[Gnaeus]

Pretty much subj.
Trying to fix up a certain homebrew. Would having an ability to cast Charm Person as Su ability (thus without Verbal and Somatic Components), be gamebreaking?
It feels that it shouldn't because it's 1st level spell, so at the same time a sorc could cast it like 50 times, but on the other hand, it's a notoriously finicky spell that has been known to cause disagreements about how potent the effect is.

As it happens, I had a character with charm person as an at will SU about a year ago (my character was a Green Dragon). The limitation about using it on things in active combat was tricky, but my DC was pretty high. It was not, in general, incredibly useful (as opposed to just having charm person memorized a couple of times on a wizard. It is a solid spell, but you don't often need to spam it). Occasionally I would spam it on people in a low level crowd, or cast it on a prisoner until he failed a save, but the only time it really was useful was when fighting a tribe of giants in a series of caves. We killed a couple of boss types and then set off the alarm. As new groups of giants rushed into the room (not yet in combat) they would move into spells to slow them and I would hit them one at a time with charm person. I would then ask them to tell their compatriots we were too powerful and they should be our allies (offer limited help, advocate). We probably turned half the tribe that way. They then (advise) told us about other threats in the cave complex. I would say thats probably the top level use of charm person. Giants are about as strong as you will find with the Humanoid tag. They had low will saves. I spoke their language. And we were aided by exploiting a favorable circumstance (small groups rushing us in waves through controllable access points). So, ONCE IN A CAMPAIGN, USED TACTICALLY IN FAVORABLE CONDITIONS that ability gave us a significant intelligence and strategic advantage. But remember, you are the DM. You pick which monsters you use. You generally set the terrain. Change any one of those factors (humanoid, low will, language, small crowd controllable groups) and you nerf it.

[Crake]

As it happens, I had a character with charm person as an at will SU about a year ago (my character was a Green Dragon). The limitation about using it on things in active combat was tricky, but my DC was pretty high. It was not, in general, incredibly useful (as opposed to just having charm person memorized a couple of times on a wizard. It is a solid spell, but you don't often need to spam it). Occasionally I would spam it on people in a low level crowd, but the only time it really was useful was when fighting a tribe of giants in a series of caves. We killed a couple of boss types and then set off the alarm. As new groups of giants rushed into the room (not yet in combat) they would move into spells to slow them and I would hit them one at a time with charm person. I would then ask them to tell their compatriots we were too powerful and they should be our allies (offer limited help, advocate). We probably turned half the tribe that way. They then (advise) told us about other threats in the cave complex. I would say thats probably the top level use of charm person. Giants are about as strong as you will find with the Humanoid tag. They had low will saves. I spoke their language. And we were aided by exploiting a favorable circumstance (small groups rushing us in waves through controllable access points). So, ONCE IN A CAMPAIGN, USED TACTICALLY IN FAVORABLE CONDITIONS that ability gave us a significant intelligence and strategic advantage. But remember, you are the DM. You pick which monsters you use. You generally set the terrain. Change any one of those factors (humanoid, low will, language, small crowd controllable groups) and you nerf it.

Uhh... Giants are not humanoids. They have a humanoid shape, but their type is "Giant" not "Humanoid".

[Gnaeus]

Uhh... Giants are not humanoids. They have a humanoid shape, but their type is "Giant" not "Humanoid".

Fair point. That would then be the top level use specifically in pathfinder, which we were playing, where they are Humanoids and Giant is a subtype. So less useful than that in 3.5. Looks like the highest base humanoid in 3.5 is 4 HD. Which already isn't much of a threat if you are CL 8. So, really, your only hope of doing much anything useful there is if the DM is kindly enough to give you a tribe of orcs or gnolls or something where like 90% happen to be high level fighters, barbarians, or other low wis low will targets. In other words, you don't need to nerf it to prevent strong use, you need to intentionally enable it if you want it to be much stronger than a wizard with charm person in his spellbook.

[ChudoJogurt]

>At the OP: Why it has to be an SU and not an at will SLA? Is there any reason other than more powerful?^^
Yeah, I pretty much wanted it to not have outward signs. I thoughts SLAs do have verbal/somatic components.

[Crake]

Fair point. That would then be the top level use specifically in pathfinder, which we were playing, where they are Humanoids and Giant is a subtype. So less useful than that in 3.5.

Oooh, right, fair call, I forgot they made that change in pathfinder.

[Gnaeus]

Oooh, right, fair call, I forgot they made that change in pathfinder.

I'm so used to PF I forgot they used to be a different type. :smallsmile: The difficulties of multiple VERY SIMILAR but with important differences systems. I wasn't intending to give PF only advice.

[Ramza00]

The Half Fey template has a 1 LA version and a 2 LA version (available on the WOTC website which is down now, but there were copies on other websites)

Both give the Charm Person at Will as a Spell Like, now it is not Supernatural but the feat Supernatural Transformation fixes that.

=====

Now is this balanced is a fair question to ask? I know you are doing homebrew but I am just providing more data and context here. Remember Su abilities are pretty much undetectable for no verbal or somatic components, you just think it / feel it / vibe it and the enemy gets a saving throw and it knows something is off even if it can not identify what was the cause if it makes the saving throw.

[Biggus]

Looks like the highest base humanoid in 3.5 is 4 HD.

There's the Asabi Stingtail in Monsters of Faerun which is 7HD, but that's still not all that powerful.

[Gnaeus]

There's the Asabi Stingtail in Monsters of Faerun which is 7HD, but that's still not all that powerful.

Good catch, but specifically useless here, as they are immune to enchantment spells. And also revised to be monstrous humanoid I think.

[Metastachydium]

My suggestion? Give it a 24 hour immunity of the target succeeds.


The Half Fey template has a 1 LA version and a 2 LA version (available on the WOTC website which is down now, but there were copies on other websites)

Both give the Charm Person at Will as a Spell Like, now it is not Supernatural but the feat Supernatural Transformation fixes that.

Interesting fact: the Half-Vampire templateLM hands out an improved version of Charm Person, Charm Gaze as an at-will 1/round Su ability that works on Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids, with the only limitation being exactly that 24 hour clause. WotC deemed it unproblematic to make that available at ECL 3, and if memory serves, the Reassignment thread here further lowered the LA.

[Biggus]

And also revised to be monstrous humanoid I think.

Ah, so they were. Never mind then.

[Darg]

b) theres no supernatural signal. That is to say, the hostile tingle you feel when you pass the save of a spell (and thus also SLA), that rule doesnt apply to supernatural abilities, so they can spam their charm on people with literally no consequences.

A lot of Su abilities are "as the spell" which would inherit all the quirks other than that which is excepted. The "tingle" is not excepted and would still be there. This is not to mention the fact that many Su and Ex abilities rely on the descriptions in the Magic chapter of the PHB to fill in the blanks on how their effects are meant to function. Otherwise you could say that they ignore LoS/LoE because there is no direct rules stating that they are subject to them.

[Gnaeus]

I'd like to add that bypassing SR doesn't seem like a meaningful bonus. Target humanoid means by default no innate SR, and the few exceptions, like drow, are not generally things you will want to be spamming charm at. Likewise, classes that have their own SR, Monks and some Full Casters, are not good targets for charm person because of good will saves (and likely other defenses). The only time I'm ever going to care about casting charm person on a monk, drow, or a wizard with spell resistance is if I already have them tied to a chair for interrogation, in which case I'm going to cast it again and again until I succeed, so the SR still won't matter. I'm sure theres some corner case where it is marginally useful. But it doesn't seem like a meaningful power difference.

[Crake]

A lot of Su abilities are "as the spell" which would inherit all the quirks other than that which is excepted. The "tingle" is not excepted and would still be there. This is not to mention the fact that many Su and Ex abilities rely on the descriptions in the Magic chapter of the PHB to fill in the blanks on how their effects are meant to function. Otherwise you could say that they ignore LoS/LoE because there is no direct rules stating that they are subject to them.

By this logic, an Su ability duplicating a spell with SR would be subject to SR itself, and would have all the components that the spwll had. “As the spell” means “use the spell’s effect text as the effect text of this ability” not “this ability inherits all the properties of the spell, including those that are limited to spells specifically”.

[Gruftzwerg]

>At the OP: Why it has to be an SU and not an at will SLA? Is there any reason other than more powerful?^^
Yeah, I pretty much wanted it to not have outward signs. I thoughts SLAs do have verbal/somatic components.

Normal SLAs have no verbal or somatic components:

A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

It's just that a warlock's invocations are special and have somatic components (but normal SLA don't as said).

But if you take a warlock you could still use invisibility to hide your spellcast before revealing yourself to him.

The "Conceal Spellcasting" skill trick could also hide the somatic component once per encounter (or once per minute outside of encounter).

Not as powerful/flexible as the SU you want, but maybe you like these small limitations for balancing purposes?^^

[RandomPeasant]

Balance-wise it is probably fine. You can just cast charm monster at that level, and there's no game that charm monster can't break but at-will charm person can. Honestly the big issue I see is that it'll have a duration of 8 hours, which will mean you will need to track the duration on anyone they are trying to keep perma-charmed. I would probably bump it up to day/level, since you certainly can keep up the perma-charm with at-will charm monster so that's mostly just reducing hassle. If you're concerned, you could cap the number of people they can have charmed at once.


So, really, your only hope of doing much anything useful there is if the DM is kindly enough to give you a tribe of orcs or gnolls or something where like 90% happen to be high level fighters, barbarians, or other low wis low will targets. In other words, you don't need to nerf it to prevent strong use, you need to intentionally enable it if you want it to be much stronger than a wizard with charm person in his spellbook.

I do think that's sort of backwards. Yes, it's not going to automatically be broken, but the fact that it heavily constrains how much you can use classed NPCs as opposition does matter, particularly if you would normally run the sorts of campaigns where those enemies feature heavily (e.g. court intrigue). Though, as noted, I don't know that there's really a situation where this character is broken but a Wizard or Beguiler using their daily slots on charms isn't. Having a dozen enemies charmed is less powerful than having all your enemies charmed, but it's not like it's something that isn't causing balance problems.

[Darg]

By this logic, an Su ability duplicating a spell with SR would be subject to SR itself, and would have all the components that the spwll had. “As the spell” means “use the spell’s effect text as the effect text of this ability” not “this ability inherits all the properties of the spell, including those that are limited to spells specifically”.

We all know the intent, but where is the line drawn? "Spell's effect text" is something you made up. Regardless, if the ability mimics a spell with a "saving throw:'yes'" then by your logic it would inherit what it means for a spell with the explicit exception of using the Su caculation instead.

The most consistent way of understanding special abilities is following the succession found in the PHB and applying the previous ability type's rules and then applying the modifications of the current ability type. Otherwise, you end up with problems because supernatural abilities do not have an explicit exception to spell components. The only hint that it exists is from supernatural spell of the dweomerkeeper.

Also, nothing is limited to spells other than through exception provided by the rules for abilities. Otherwise abilities wouldn't be able to inherit the rules needed for them to function. The etherealness ability of a nightmare inherits the rules for touch spells. There's no reason a charm person supernatural ability wouldn't inherit the rules for saving throws also.

Edit: I want to point out that a cleric's turn undead does require a focus component and a bard's Su songs require verbal and/or somatic components.

[Crake]

Edit: I want to point out that a cleric's turn undead does require a focus component and a bard's Su songs require verbal and/or somatic components.

And those are explicitly called out as exceptions, unlike all the other Su abilities out there that lack such text.

I guess based on this logic, and your stance in the SLA/Spells thread, you would also have Su abilities that are based on spells qualify for any bonuses that would normally only affect spells?

[Darg]

And those are explicitly called out as exceptions, unlike all the other Su abilities out there that lack such text.

I guess based on this logic, and your stance in the SLA/Spells thread, you would also have Su abilities that are based on spells qualify for any bonuses that would normally only affect spells?

The burden is on providing evidence that Su abilities have a universal exception to the spell rules as you claim. I myself have provided evidence that at the very least some of them do in fact follow the spell rules unless stated otherwise. There's no reason to expand the scope of the argument unless you want to discuss this in another thread.

As for those being exceptions, we need actual rules to be excepted from them.

[Crake]

The burden is on providing evidence that Su abilities have a universal exception to the spell rules as you claim. I myself have provided evidence that at the very least some of them do in fact follow the spell rules unless stated otherwise. There's no reason to expand the scope of the argument unless you want to discuss this in another thread.

As for those being exceptions, we need actual rules to be excepted from them.

Nah, i aint gonna bother, cause you’ve already proven that, even with uncontrovertable evidence, you will still dig your heels in and refuse. You also havent given any evidence outside of literal called out of exceptions, which is not how general rules work

[Gruftzwerg]

At Crake and Darg in a friendly attempt to solve your conflict here:

1. SU abilities that refer to Spells are already an exception!

2. Thus it will always boil down the to specific wording of each exception.

3. There are no general rules for the exception when a SU ability refers to a Spell.

So you are both right and wrong at the same time. You would have to look at each specific example and settle em one by one to get to conclusion here.

[Gnaeus]

I do think that's sort of backwards. Yes, it's not going to automatically be broken, but the fact that it heavily constrains how much you can use classed NPCs as opposition does matter, particularly if you would normally run the sorts of campaigns where those enemies feature heavily (e.g. court intrigue). Though, as noted, I don't know that there's really a situation where this character is broken but a Wizard or Beguiler using their daily slots on charms isn't. Having a dozen enemies charmed is less powerful than having all your enemies charmed, but it's not like it's something that isn't causing balance problems.

Because classed NPCs isn't the issue. Its a certain type of classed NPCS. I can't really think of a less useful place to have it than a court intrigue game. Its probably illegal. The most useful targets probably have defenses against it. Theres a reasonable chance it could be noticed and dispelled. If it wears off, you are jacked. Unlike orc or giant grunts, the classes people have are reasonably likely to include good will save classes like noble or expert. High wis is likely common, because sense motive. And unlike in a monster tribe, even if I charm the entire Gotham PD, shooting Commissioner Gordon in the face isn't likely to bring them under my control.

It might be a little better in like an underworld campaign. You might be able to get away with something like that in a thieves guild. But even there, I suspect that your average member loyalty isn't necessarily going to go to the strongest guy in the room/the guy who killed the last boss.

[Darg]

uncontrovertable evidence,

You seem to think you have brought evidence. I've been through your posts in this thread several times. What specifically is the evidence you presented?


You also havent given any evidence outside of literal called out of exceptions, which is not how general rules work

We still don't have access to the general rules you think exist. The rules work by presenting exception to more general rules. You call these abilities exceptions, but exception to what? As things stand right now, we don't have evidence other than inference that supernatural abilities do not inherit all aspects of a spell when they are said to function just like the spells they mimic. Where is the rule that a nightmare doesn't need to possess a jacinth and silver bars to use their astral projection ability? There is none. Where is the rule that says a rakshasa's detect thoughts ability doesn't alert even on a successful save when the spell in question has a line for saving throws?

This is why I presented the successive rules interpretation as it solves all conflicts with the written rules. What it does not do though is allow supernatural abilities that mimic spells to not alert when you've made a saving throw.

[Bohandas]

The relative power of charm person goes up or down depending on how many of the monsters and NPCs that the PCs encounter are of the "humanoid" type.

EDIT:
Also, it's blocked by Protection From Evil/Chaos/Good/Law

[Crake]

The relative power of charm person goes up or down depending on how many of the monsters and NPCs that the PCs encounter are of the "humanoid" type.

EDIT:
Also, it's blocked by Protection From Evil/Chaos/Good/Law

Charm isn't blocked by protection, it doesn't allower the caster to exercise control, only influence.

[bekeleven]

3.5 is noticeably vague and occasionally contradictory about whether most spells have visual manifestations. I recall there was some PF text clarifying that almost all spells do, and suggesting that it was designer intent in the past as well, but in 3.5, the value of most manipulative enchantment spells swings wildly on this section of the rules that was simply never written.

[Crake]

I recall there was some PF text clarifying that almost all spells do, and suggesting that it was designer intent in the past as well

I don't think Pathfinder had much, if any, overlap of developers from 3.5, so they would have no way to know what the 3.5 designer intent was.

[Bohandas]

Charm isn't blocked by protection, it doesn't allower the caster to exercise control, only influence.

That's what I initially thought, but I reread the spell description and it specifically refrences spells from the (Charm) subschool. The charm subschool only has like seven spells and they all do pretty much the same thing as charm person

[Crake]

That's what I initially thought, but I reread the spell description and it specifically refrences spells from the (Charm) subschool. The charm subschool only has like seven spells and they all do pretty much the same thing as charm person

It specifies that it only protects against such spells that allow ongoing control, likely as a future proof statement. Charm person does not allow ongoing control, so it doesnt qualify.

[Darg]

It specifies that it only protects against such spells that allow ongoing control, likely as a future proof statement. Charm person does not allow ongoing control, so it doesnt qualify.

"Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior." Making a creature treat you as a trusted friend definitely leans into the "control" aspect. If charm person doesn't qualify, what charm spell does? Language in the charm person spell strongly implies you are controlling a creature:


The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.

You have free reign to order them around as long as it's something they do ordinarily. Dominate person doesn't make a person a puppet where they do nothing unless you directly manipulate them; you have to actively give them commands to control them. The methods between the two spells are different, but they both allow you to control a target.

[Crake]

"Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior." Making a creature treat you as a trusted friend definitely leans into the "control" aspect. If charm person doesn't qualify, what charm spell does? Language in the charm person spell strongly implies you are controlling a creature:



You have free reign to order them around as long as it's something they do ordinarily. Dominate person doesn't make a person a puppet where they do nothing unless you directly manipulate them; you have to actively give them commands to control them. The methods between the two spells are different, but they both allow you to control a target.

It literally says in the spell that it does not give you control, yet you still say it gives you control. Theres no point discussing when you just completely ignore the words written. Giving orders that can be resisted is not control, and even if they obey, they handle the orders how they want, not how you decide.

[JNAProductions]

Darg, in the section you quoted, it explicitly says “does not enable you to control the charmed person”.

That seems lrettt clear cut.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The interpretation that PfE doesn't block Charm Person/Monster is flawed imo.


Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)

The bolded part can be read as "enchantment (charm) effects that grant the caster..." and "enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster...", but since there aren't any charm effects that grant ongoing control over the subject - pretty much by definition, since if they did that they'd be compulsions - that reading of PfE makes no sense.

You can however also read it as "enchantment (charm) effects" and "enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster...", which is both a valid reading and the interpretation that makes PfE actually interact with charms (instead of not doing so at all).

[Crake]

The interpretation that PfE doesn't block Charm Person/Monster is flawed imo.



The bolded part can be read as "enchantment (charm) effects that grant the caster..." and "enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster...", but since there aren't any charm effects that grant ongoing control over the subject - pretty much by definition, since if they did that they'd be compulsions - that reading of PfE makes no sense.

You can however also read it as "enchantment (charm) effects" and "enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster...", which is both a valid reading and the interpretation that makes PfE actually interact with charms (instead of not doing so at all).

That's not actually true, if it was the latter interpretation, it would have an oxford comma between the two, denoting that each is a separate entry in a list, so it would be written as "including enchantment (charm) effects<COMMA> and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject"

[Gruftzwerg]

That's not actually true, if it was the latter interpretation, it would have an oxford comma between the two, denoting that each is a separate entry in a list, so it would be written as "including enchantment (charm) effects<COMMA> and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject"

You made my day <3

Normally its me dissecting the RAW sentence structure and syntax into bits and get yelled at.

Keep up the good work xD

And I've taken note for the next time when you yell at me again for doing this ;)

[sleepyphoenixx]

That's not actually true, if it was the latter interpretation, it would have an oxford comma between the two, denoting that each is a separate entry in a list, so it would be written as "including enchantment (charm) effects<COMMA> and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject"

Fair enough, but i'm going to go with bad editing over PfE having a clause dedicated to a category of spells that don't exist.

[Crake]

You made my day <3

Normally its me dissecting the RAW sentence structure and syntax into bits and get yelled at.

Keep up the good work xD

And I've taken note for the next time when you yell at me again for doing this ;)

right, but in my defense, I explained my position with one sentence :smalltongue:


Fair enough, but i'm going to go with bad editing over PfE having a clause dedicated to a category of spells that don't exist.

I mean, fair, but having a level 1 spell completely negate an entire subschool of magic seems a little too strong in my book. I would assume futureproofing over giving the spell too much power. I also kinda think it would make lilitu as a monster completely nonfunctional, since their primary schtick is charming and corrupting devout and pious clergy members, but that would become completely impossible for any clergy that operate out of a hallowed church, which realistically should be 99% of them, as one of the duties of high level clergy should be going around and sanctifying the churches of their faith.

Also should note that 3.5 pretty frequently displays an understanding of the oxford comma, for what it's worth.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I mean, fair, but having a level 1 spell completely negate an entire subschool of magic seems a little too strong in my book. I would assume futureproofing over giving the spell too much power. I also kinda think it would make lilitu as a monster completely nonfunctional, since their primary schtick is charming and corrupting devout and pious clergy members, but that would become completely impossible for any clergy that operate out of a hallowed church, which realistically should be 99% of them, as one of the duties of high level clergy should be going around and sanctifying the churches of their faith.

Isn't that kind of the point of hallowing your churches? The Lilitu will just have to look for prey outside of that protection or work around it. I'm sure its 19 Int will let it think of something.

Also keep in mind that PfE only suppresses effects, it doesn't negate them. Which is relevant because charms usually have long durations, so unless said clergy members are complete shut-ins they'll still be vulnerable some of the time.
And also that the "entire subschool" being "negated" here only includes 17 spells total, over all classes. Some of which are buffs. With PfE only lasting 1 min/level if you're not in a fixed location it's not exactly the hardest counter.

[Crake]

Isn't that kind of the point of hallowing your churches? The Lilitu will just have to look for prey outside of that protection or work around it. I'm sure its 19 Int will let it think of something.

Also keep in mind that PfE only suppresses effects, it doesn't negate them. Which is relevant because charms usually have long durations, so unless said clergy members are complete shut-ins they'll still be vulnerable some of the time.
And also that the "entire subschool" being "negated" here only includes 17 spells total, over all classes. Some of which are buffs. With PfE only lasting 1 min/level if you're not in a fixed location it's not exactly the hardest counter.

Sure, if that's the stance you wanna take. Considering an item of protection from evil would only cost roughly 4000gp though, it's duration seems largely irrelevant, and if you have a look through your monster manual, you'll notice that charm is actually a very common monster ability, so just because there's only a handful of spells, doesn't mean it's not negating a fairly large swathe of abilities off the table.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Sure, if that's the stance you wanna take. Considering an item of protection from evil would only cost roughly 4000gp though, it's duration seems largely irrelevant, and if you have a look through your monster manual, you'll notice that charm is actually a very common monster ability, so just because there's only a handful of spells, doesn't mean it's not negating a fairly large swathe of abilities off the table.

The custom item guidelines explicitly include comparing it to already existing items. And afaik the only official item that grants permanent PfE is the Exalted armor property (BoED), which is a +3 enhancement.
Easy access to permanent PfE certainly isn't what the spell is balanced around. And at 1 min/level even a PfE that suppresses Charm Person is a very soft counter at best.

As for the powerlevel there are several other 1st level spells that negate a subschool or subset of threats, usually a larger one and for longer - Ebon Eyes for darkness, Magic Aura for magic detection short of Identify, Surefooted Stride for difficult terrain, Undetectable Alignment for Detect Alignment spells - so PfE temporarily suppressing charms isn't out of line in that regard either.

PfE not working on charms on the other hand means that there is no counter to being charmed until level 5 at the earliest.
And given that Charm Person is a 1st level spell and as you mentioned a common monster ability i don't think that's the intention.

[Darg]

Darg, in the section you quoted, it explicitly says “does not enable you to control the charmed person”.

That seems lrettt clear cut.

"As if it were an automaton" seems like a pretty clear qualifier. It is why I bolded it in the first place. It seems quite counter intuitive that being able to order people around isn't a form of control. Science fiction mind "control" does range to altering someone's reaction to specific persons. So it's not like it's a new concept here.


It literally says in the spell that it does not give you control, yet you still say it gives you control. Theres no point discussing when you just completely ignore the words written. Giving orders that can be resisted is not control, and even if they obey, they handle the orders how they want, not how you decide.

I take it you haven't read dominate person? There are some orders even dominated creatures will never follow and those that allow saving throws. If you order a dominated creature to kill something, they'll do it in their own way too. If you want it done in a particular fashion you have to detail your order because they act less than creatively as described by the spell.

[Crake]

"As if it were an automaton" seems like a pretty clear qualifier. It is why I bolded it in the first place.

Im not going to argue semantics with you, but if it was intended as “The spell grants you control [with caveats]” it would not be written as “This spell does not grant you control [with clarification]”

[Darg]

it would not be written as “This spell does not grant you control [with clarification]”

It's saying you can't control the creature in this way, but rather this other method. A qualifier modifies or limits the meaning of a statement or word. "The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person," is limited by the phrase "as if it were an automaton." The use of "but" introduces the contrasting statement of "it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way" because you can't control the creature as if it were an automaton so you have to control it using it's favorable perception of your words and actions.

If all they wanted to get across is that you don't control the creature all they had to do was put a "." after the first quote and not mention ordering people around. I mean, who has a habit of ordering their trusted friends and allies around? That's not really normal and the spell doesn't say you are treated as a superior.

[Crake]

It's saying you can't control the creature in this way, but rather this other method. A qualifier modifies or limits the meaning of a statement or word. "The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person," is limited by the phrase "as if it were an automaton." The use of "but" introduces the contrasting statement of "it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way" because you can't control the creature as if it were an automaton so you have to control it using it's favorable perception of your words and actions.

If all they wanted to get across is that you don't control the creature all they had to do was put a "." after the first quote and not mention ordering people around. I mean, who has a habit of ordering their trusted friends and allies around? That's not really normal and the spell doesn't say you are treated as a superior.

As I said, im not getting into an argument of semantics with you.

[Darg]

As I said, im not getting into an argument of semantics with you.

You said that and then added a "but." The mixed signals gave the wrong impression then.