tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post6318730402354732464..comments2024-03-26T15:35:56.004-04:00Comments on Delta's D&D Hotspot: Surveys & Samples: Charm PersonDeltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-91759229202311379812021-07-27T22:41:10.453-04:002021-07-27T22:41:10.453-04:00My personal take is to treat Charm Person using th...My personal take is to treat Charm Person using the Reaction table rules, as if you had rolled the highest possible result. This doesn't mean they'll ignore a killed ally or stab their friends, but they'll be willing to stop fighting and hear you out - just the same as if you had encountered goblins or bandits and rolled well.<br /><br />Then I just add separate spells for Domination (Zombie-like, simple commands) and Mind Control (follows commands, makes up excuses for contradictions).Qyubeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05057969629411262342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-78311056918794207062021-06-23T02:15:10.017-04:002021-06-23T02:15:10.017-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.VIPANGKASABOLA.COMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11991550207831311081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-87547345696437279812021-06-21T11:17:37.211-04:002021-06-21T11:17:37.211-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.decodersdigitalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15511683903316555421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-12148076403486654862021-06-11T10:21:59.966-04:002021-06-11T10:21:59.966-04:00Oh, even more interesting. Thanks for that!Oh, even more interesting. Thanks for that!Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-84822278195275755002021-06-11T10:21:17.291-04:002021-06-11T10:21:17.291-04:00Great points all around.
And: Nice quote on DMG p...Great points all around.<br /><br />And: Nice quote on DMG p. 7. That Preface is one of the rarest parts of the book for me to re-read regularly.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-3940393893688416122021-06-11T10:16:53.729-04:002021-06-11T10:16:53.729-04:00Those are great examples, thanks for those!
IMO, ...Those are great examples, thanks for those!<br /><br />IMO, if there was a difference in effect between "charm person" and "charm monster" (e.g., Loki's ability), I'd be all for that. But the AD&D DMG attempt at carving out two different meaning of "charm person" (spell vs. monster ability) rubs me the wrong way.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-37569076142630247392021-06-11T09:59:41.695-04:002021-06-11T09:59:41.695-04:00Awesome, ty. Awesome, ty. dcdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03154350186931640520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-81514862828232225862021-06-09T01:09:06.196-04:002021-06-09T01:09:06.196-04:00Just thought of two examples of magical/psychic ch...Just thought of two examples of magical/psychic charm or domination in film...<br /><br />In Boorman's Excalibur, Perceval encounters Morgana near the end of his grail quest. She uses her power to try to charm him, but fails. We see other knights who succumbed to her charms in a most unpleasant situation...<br /><br />Second and more recently, Loki in the Avengers had total mental domination of his subjects due to the power of the Mind Stone. The "enchantment/psychic command" was so powerful they even acted against their core beliefs and performed actions that were otherwise suicidal... but, also, at times were able to do things against or rather, sideways, from their commands.<br /><br />I am sure there are other examples in film, but I can't recall any off the top of my head.James Mishlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03510782553325944558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-69217421413040955332021-06-08T22:28:19.044-04:002021-06-08T22:28:19.044-04:00You had a six-person party in Gold Box, with the a...You had a six-person party in Gold Box, with the ability to add NPCs (usually for story reasons, but in Pool of Radiance you could hire party members).<br /><br />I'm pretty sure that charm person only switched a character to your side for a single combat, but don't quote me. It's been a while.Nathan P. Mahneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184246437497081701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-2248443779542560342021-06-08T17:28:08.699-04:002021-06-08T17:28:08.699-04:00I also think there is a difference between "h...I also think there is a difference between "help us hold off the dragon" and "hey, you go hold off that dragon for us"Baquieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08357103428591599364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-53983591287351789212021-06-08T17:06:17.037-04:002021-06-08T17:06:17.037-04:00The issue about giving up the magic item reflects ...The issue about giving up the magic item reflects that side of Gygax that claimed that all players were greedy selfish bastards out to wreck the balance that the DM desperately sought to maintain. (If you think I exaggerate, see the bottom of p. 7 of the 1E DMG.) The players don't get a long-term advantage from killing off a charmed NPC, but they do from stealing that NPC's magic items.John Brinegarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12123235797335728124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-63762923800964306732021-06-08T15:30:21.415-04:002021-06-08T15:30:21.415-04:00Related, someone today offered the interpretation ...Related, someone today offered the interpretation of "instant hireling", as with that same reaction table (OD&D Vol-1 p. 12) being used to hire NPCs. The top level being "Enthusiast, Loyalty +3". Today that's really hitting me quite nicely. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-72599830834831658232021-06-08T15:28:11.889-04:002021-06-08T15:28:11.889-04:00I like that interpretation of the dream state a wh...I like that interpretation of the dream state a whole lot! There have been times in the past when I considered making charmees move & act at half speed. (e.g., "I... must... kill.. the queen"). But maybe just taking "attack allies" off the table gets me where I'm comfortable. <br /><br />Great reference with Manchurian Candidate, btw.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-91607705384985018562021-06-08T15:24:59.869-04:002021-06-08T15:24:59.869-04:00Yeah, I agree with one day for my game.Yeah, I agree with one day for my game.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-34512186746140709762021-06-08T15:24:16.107-04:002021-06-08T15:24:16.107-04:00Right, thanks for that! The 3E Dominate Person spe...Right, thanks for that! The 3E Dominate Person spell is definitely (I think) in the tradition from Gygax in the AD&D DMG where he tried to cut a distinction with, "The spell is not _enslave_ person or mammal" (even though that was the exact word used for the Nixie ability in OD&D).<br /><br />It's interesting, Moldvay actually cut the categories and mostly reduced the times compared to what was errata'd into OD&D Sup-I (Greyhawk). As usual, he made a sharp and simplifying edit there.<br /> Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-70692402298446853812021-06-08T15:16:56.724-04:002021-06-08T15:16:56.724-04:00That's a good data point on the Gold Box games...That's a good data point on the Gold Box games, thanks for that. How big were the party sizes generally? (With Sleep at least there's an upper hit dice limit.)Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-21497738426025607912021-06-08T15:08:04.912-04:002021-06-08T15:08:04.912-04:00Right, I don't mind that too much. Or maybe ju...Right, I don't mind that too much. Or maybe just rule out the attack-allies specifically. I've also seen it suggested to treat them as instant-hirelings (since it's actually referenced in the hirelings section like that). <br /><br />Sometimes it seems weird that the (AD&D) rules treat giving up a magic item as more severe than, e.g., hold-off-that-dragon for a few rounds. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-14940032468721173282021-06-08T15:05:59.338-04:002021-06-08T15:05:59.338-04:00Per OD&D, it's "two-legged, generally...Per OD&D, it's "two-legged, generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size"Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-55255198948771528492021-06-08T15:05:13.495-04:002021-06-08T15:05:13.495-04:00Ooh, that tickles me quite a bit, actually. Not su...Ooh, that tickles me quite a bit, actually. Not sure I'd write it into my own house rules due to space issues. But that's really neat. :-)Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-50455403013853032102021-06-08T12:48:32.287-04:002021-06-08T12:48:32.287-04:00Would it help things if I introduced doubt into th...Would it help things if I introduced doubt into the interpretation of even the OD&D description? Is "completely under the influence" the same as "completely under the control"?<br /><br />But seriously... I think Charm Person has an immediate and easy to adjudicate effect, but lots of potential side effects that require interpretation. Basically, all the things listed in your poll.<br /><br />The immediate effect is the "best friend" result. M-U casts Charm Person on the guard, guard fails save, guard is now M-U's best friend. Guard will not attack the M-U except under the same kinds of circumstances that your best friend would attack <i>YOU</i>. Guard will help the M-U (no roll required) to the same extent as your best friend would help <i>YOU</i>. And so on. I basically treat it as "charmed person starts out as completely loyal."<br /><br />For other stuff, the guard will potentially still do what the M-U requires, but not necessarily so. The same as your best friend might do riskier or more difficult things for <i>YOU</i> if asked, but becomes less and less likely as the risks rise. That's where the interpretation comes in.<br /><br />Defend the M-U against miscellaneous dangers that <i>aren't</i> allies, like giant spiders? Probably, although morale would come into play.<br /><br />Defend the M-U against (former) allies? Maybe not. Will probably try to convince allies the M-U is OK/on their side.<br /><br />Flee encounter? Maybe, especially if they are cowards anyways, or if the encounter is crazy dangerous. But if the charmed person is very concerned about other people's opinions of their bravery, they probably won't flee most encounters, but might be convinced to make a defensive retreat.<br /><br />All of this is subject to communication. Charm Person doesn't say <i>anything at all</i> about telepathic control or granting the ability to communicate. The M-U has to make their desires clear. At the very least, for OD&D, you should follow the command and control rules in Vol. 3.<br /><br />And all of this applies to nixies, dryads, and vampires, too, as far as I'm concerned. Dryads basically convince victims they are in love. PCs might attack their former allies if they insist on harming their One True Love, but don't necessarily attack on command. But the main goal of these monsters is not to gain an edge in combat, but to either get a servant or (for vampires) to move a victim to a more useful location for feeding. Vampires <i>maybe</i> can do this without speaking, but otherwise, it's the same thing.<br /><br />But that's just my interpretation.Talysmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02162328521343832412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-38247968653520149362021-06-08T10:25:18.164-04:002021-06-08T10:25:18.164-04:00I've mentioned this here before, but my inclin...I've mentioned this here before, but my inclination is to say that the effect of Charm Person is the same as getting a maximum result on a reaction check. The DM already needs to think about how far that goes, and Charm Person can ride on that. <br /><br />In so much the character's don't have to fight and can talk with creatures on a good reaction check, they can rely on doing that with a charmed target - that's the mechanical effect. Anything they negotiate by talking is subject to the same level of DM fiat as they would face with any other friendly NPC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-51601278791685269412021-06-08T10:13:20.688-04:002021-06-08T10:13:20.688-04:00When I've seen charm come up, it's usually...When I've seen charm come up, it's usually been against single opponents, not one individual in a group of enemies. As such, the charmed character joins the PC (like a henchman) and pretty much follows him/her around, fighting with the character, etc. <br /><br />I think I see the spell as more of a adding a hazy, mind-alteration to a target, rather than outright mind-control. The subject is operating (more-or-less) like they're in a dream state...in dreams we often see people we know in different roles than reality. If a charmed goblin saw its friend attacked by (previously ally) goblins, it would probably fight to defend itself and its new "friend"...but it probably wouldn't initiate combat with prior allies just on the wizard's command.<br /><br />This "dream state" explains why charmed spell-casters cannot (for example) manufacture magic items and whatnot for their new friend. They just can't focus with the charm acting on their perception of reality.<br /><br />So, yeah: in my opinion a charmed creature would defend the caster, but wouldn't flee (unless fleeing WITH the caster), or surrender (why would they need to surrender to their "friend"), or attack former allies (unless defending itself from former allies). A charmed creature would certainly put away its weapons if there was no danger and the thing was just chatting with its new "friend."<br /><br />While I would allow a charm to be cast in combat, the target of such a spell would probably spend at least a round in confusion as it tried to "re-orient its perception" to its new mental state. <br /><br />What I think is very interesting is that the AD&D description of the spell seems to indicate the charmed creature gives the greatest portion of its loyalty to the caster, even to the point of putting its own life at risk to save the caster (see the description in the druid spell section about holding off a red dragon!). That tells me that a charmed individual, forced to take sides in a combat with former allies, should side with the magic-user. However, what if the caster's opponents have a deep emotional connection to the charmed creature: a spouse, a sibling, a parent, a child? Would an attack by the charmed character's paramour give it a chance to "break" the charm? I'd think it would be worth at least a save...with failure indicating the creature obeys its charm "programming." Reminds me of that scene in the Manchurian Candidate when Raymond Shaw kills his girlfriend while in a trance state.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-67984556043489251152021-06-07T22:35:53.466-04:002021-06-07T22:35:53.466-04:00Based on the poll results I would suggest allowing...Based on the poll results I would suggest allowing the first two results without a saving throw. Having a charmed person attack their allies should require a saving throw. As far as duration goes I use a turn but then I am trying to mirror Jedi mind tricks and not fantasy literature. I would recommend one hour or one day.lobocastlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16984912823297100482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-20548585035848600772021-06-07T15:45:15.521-04:002021-06-07T15:45:15.521-04:003E developed a series of charm spells:
1st level:...3E developed a series of charm spells:<br /><br />1st level: Charm Person<br />3rd level: Suggestion<br />5th Level: Dominate Person<br /><br />Each grew stronger in what it could force the enchanted being to do...<br /><br />With Charm Person, "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" and lasted 1 hour/level.<br /><br />Suggestion:<br />"You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable." Duration is 1 hour/level or until the action is completed. So it is more limited in scope but more powerful than Charm Person in that scope.<br /><br />Then there is Dominate Person:<br />"You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind. If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities...<br /><br />Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out." Dominate Person lasts one day per level.<br /><br />So in 3E they kind of split the difference by offering a higher-level spell with the old-school interpretation of Charm Person.<br /><br />I myself like the Moldvay version, which has longer durations between saving throws based on Intelligence and does not have any provision for saving throws against suicidal commands or commands against their nature (they just don't do it, but remain charmed). But of course, that requires DM adjudication, which seems anathema in the more modern editions of the game. <br />James Mishlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03510782553325944558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-34780890890792757272021-06-07T13:37:32.566-04:002021-06-07T13:37:32.566-04:00If we go to the Gold Box interpretation, those gam...If we go to the Gold Box interpretation, those games had charmed characters switch sides and fight for you (or the enemy). But I guess video games aren't where you go for nuanced interpretations.<br /><br />My preference is for the target to be under the caster's complete control. 1st level magic-users get one spell, so it should count. I think it's also in line with Sleep, which is also much more powerful than its level would suggest. Maybe an extra save could be added if asked to attack allies, with a bonus or penalty if the character is lawful or chaotic. And of course the standard language disallowing suicidal commands would apply.Nathan P. Mahneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184246437497081701noreply@blogger.com