This blog is mainly meant for DMs, hopefully providing tips and tricks to help running a campaign and handling problems as well as providing plot ideas.
I am playing a heavily house ruled 3E campaign, but the entries should be applicable to other systems as well.
I am playing a heavily house ruled 3E campaign, but the entries should be applicable to other systems as well.
Charmed, I am sure.
Posted 12th September 2008 at 11:49 AM by Fenes
Charm Person is one of the spells that often lead to trouble at the gaming table. Used by PCs, it can cause a lot of problems to some DMs, used by an NPC it can cause a lot of frustration for the players. The main cause is, in my opinion, a misunderstanding of the spell.
Charm Person is often mistaken for something else, like dominate person. The charmed character is expected to switch sides in combat, and to attack its former friends without mercy.
But that's not what Charm Person does. Charm Person doesn't make anyone hate their friends - all it does is making the caster the new best friend of the character that was charmed, and making him consider the new friends actions in the best light possible. The other characters are still seen in the same light - friends, allies, lovers, etc.
As a DM, I tell players always this: It's your best friend. That's all. What do you do?
The answer depends on the character. In the case of the charmer and the rest of the PCs fighting, many characters will try to prevent harm to any of their friends, they won't mindlessly attack their friends, much less kill them. (Of course, if a character, for example an evil NPC, doesn't have friends other than the charmer, just disposable allies, killing them is not unlikely to save its only friend.) For not too few, restraining their "best friend" from attacking the others, who might kill him "in self-defense" is a valid choice - especially if they acted in a similar way with their real friends before, like knocking out a hotheaded character before he attacked a noble, for example.
For non-combat situations, one has to remember that some things a character would not do, not even for a best friend. A secret that a character didn't even tell their "former" best friends is unlikely to be spilled to the new best friend. Nor is betraying an oath likely if the character wouldn't do that for anyone - charm person doesn't change a character's character, it just adds a new best friend.
(Barring persuasive talking and other forms of influence, of course - charm person is a great help with that.)
In conclusion, simply telling people that "the charmer becomes your friend, everything else, including your views of others and your character stays the same" avoids a lot of the troubles charm person can cause.
Charm Person is often mistaken for something else, like dominate person. The charmed character is expected to switch sides in combat, and to attack its former friends without mercy.
But that's not what Charm Person does. Charm Person doesn't make anyone hate their friends - all it does is making the caster the new best friend of the character that was charmed, and making him consider the new friends actions in the best light possible. The other characters are still seen in the same light - friends, allies, lovers, etc.
As a DM, I tell players always this: It's your best friend. That's all. What do you do?
The answer depends on the character. In the case of the charmer and the rest of the PCs fighting, many characters will try to prevent harm to any of their friends, they won't mindlessly attack their friends, much less kill them. (Of course, if a character, for example an evil NPC, doesn't have friends other than the charmer, just disposable allies, killing them is not unlikely to save its only friend.) For not too few, restraining their "best friend" from attacking the others, who might kill him "in self-defense" is a valid choice - especially if they acted in a similar way with their real friends before, like knocking out a hotheaded character before he attacked a noble, for example.
For non-combat situations, one has to remember that some things a character would not do, not even for a best friend. A secret that a character didn't even tell their "former" best friends is unlikely to be spilled to the new best friend. Nor is betraying an oath likely if the character wouldn't do that for anyone - charm person doesn't change a character's character, it just adds a new best friend.
(Barring persuasive talking and other forms of influence, of course - charm person is a great help with that.)
In conclusion, simply telling people that "the charmer becomes your friend, everything else, including your views of others and your character stays the same" avoids a lot of the troubles charm person can cause.
Total Comments 1
Comments
-
Also, DMs need to remember a few things when adjudicating enchantment spells.
First, it takes a Spellcraft DC 16 to identify charm person as it is cast, a 21 to identify it once it is in place and a 26 to identify the spell after you saved against it. Page 177 of the PhB uses charm person as it's example of what happens when you save against a spell: you know a spell was cast (e.g. you feel a tingle) but have NO information about what the spell was supposed to do. When a DM hands out free information that the spell was invading your mind, the DM profoundly nerfs enchanters.
Second, it's relatively simple for bards to get Disguise Spell or for enchanters to get the skill trick that makes it impossible to determine who cast the spell. And casting it with Silent and Still Spell feats makes it impossible by rule to determine who cast a spell like charm person.
Third, the charmer does not control the charmee. Those opposed checks no more indicate control than opposed Diplomacy checks do or a bluff vs. a sense motive check.
If you don't pay attention to these rules, you end up removing an avenue for creative (and often nonviolent) problem solving.Posted 16th September 2008 at 04:11 PM by roguerouge
Total Trackbacks 0
And yet another word from our sponsors
