D&D 5E 5e completely nerfed charm - for YOU, anyway

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not talking about violence with regard to hostility really. What I mean is that there aren't any spells that enable subtle manipulation over time beyond a single encounter.

Effects such as the charming city officials to get them to do things for you over the course of days or even weeks. That kind of thing. The whole focus of magic is very encounter-centric.

Well, you could use a Subtle Geas or something to charm someone. Or be an Enchanter, Geas them (for a month or a year or permanently) and then use your abilities to wipe their memory afterward.

It doesn't matter what you Geas them to do. You're just after the long-term Charm effect.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A long-term Charm effect in 5e is called Persuasion.

Charm just helps you get success on those rolls when you're not naturally charming!

 

[Morlock]

[Moved to subsequent comment to avoid confusion]

 

[Morlock]

Hey, sure, just make up a bunch of lies then, feel free.

So rather than brute forcing anything remotely resembling intrigue via magical mind control, players might occasionally have to dig deep and come up with something approximating cleverness? No offense, but I hardly see that as a bad thing. Magic is fine as a aid, but it shouldn't be the solution to every problem. Mind-control is potent enough as is without having to worry about it lasting for an indefinite period of time. Racing against the clock, as in the one hour time limit of Charm Person, can be a wonderful catalyst for player creativity. IMO, the real magic in this game happens most often when the players don't rely on magic as a crutch.

First, indefinite=strawman. Second, an hour is plenty of time to interrogate.

I understand your point - mind control, mind reading, etc. create special problems for DMs who want to keep secrets. But that aside, we could make similar points about anything:

"Fireball, damage spells in general? That's just a cheap way to do what the fighter should be doing. Why should spellcasters get to solve combat problems with damage spells? Let's make them think for a change."

Also, persuasion skills would seem to present similar problems. "OMG, the rules say so-and-so is just too persuasive, he can get the NPCs to spill anything!"

ETA: the more I think about it, the more I think this "NPCs are going to spill mah secretz!" thing is more aptly described as a DM creativity issue, not a PC creativity issue. Consider the real world; torture, properly applied, will get anyone to spill anything, period, full stop. These are the bounds of reality, not just spellcasting. This also indicates a way forward. The eternal problem for torturers is when to believe their subjects. People who don't know anything will gladly make stuff up to get the pain to stop. Maybe working something like this into magic that supposedly gets the truth out of subjects is the way to fix this DM problem.

Other posters will confirm your bias, but, no everyone is going to agree that one of Dracula (or Strahd, or whoever) should be on par with a single 9th level PC.

And with whom would they be agreeing or disagreeing, exactly? Because it isn't me.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Consider the real world; torture, properly applied, will get anyone to spill anything, period, full stop.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/226866-experienced-interrogator-torture-doesnt-work

 

[SuperZero]

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/226866-experienced-interrogator-torture-doesnt-work

To be fair, Morlock stated that "proper" torture (perhaps the intent of the oxymoron was that the condition being impossible to fulfill makes it impossible to disprove) is completely infallible before immediately explaining why it couldn't possibly achieve anything.

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Morlock will no longer be a part of this conversation. Please continue (or not) with that in mind. Thanks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I think [MENTION=6776981]Morlock[/MENTION] may be under the impression that 5e is an "updated 3.x/4e". It's not. It is a new game system, built from the ground up, but with the combined veneer of BECMI/1e/2e and 3.x/PF/4e. In 5e, "balance" is closer to the original meaning of having a "well balanced campaign". That is, balance happens over the length of a campaign's life...not on a 1:1 comparison of classes, levels, races, spells, etc.

That's not a bad point about balance, though I tend to think of it as DM-moderated, so you could have balanced encounters or keep PCs more or less balanced over the scope of a session or few, rather than only theoretically over a whole campaign as 1e/2e tended towards. But, 5e is hardly a 'ground up' design, it's very derivative of the classic game, and intentionally (even properly) so, /and/ builds on 3.x as well. 'Syncretic' might be closer to the truth. But, yes, certainly not "updated 3.x/4e" - "more evolved 2e" though, might not be unfair.

That said, it is also one of the strengths of this edition; the ability to change, modify, nix or add whatever you want to make your campaign your own and fit you and your groups play style. If you don't like a 'nerfed' Charm...change it or go use whatever edition's version you do like.

Exactly: if the OP finds the Vampire write-up appropriate for a 'Charm' effect, house-rule Charm or Dominate spells with similar language.

Monsters aren't player characters. They don't and shouldn't need to obey the same rules or have the restrictions. They don't need to be balanced for play over 20 levels fighting 1-6 encounters. They just need to exist for 2-10 rounds of combat and then go away.

While I heartily agree, 3.x/PF skate a whole lot closer to PCs/NPCs/Monsters all theoretically using 'the same' rules, and a lot of folks like it that way (and some took it even further). 5e is as much for fans who loved 3.5 as it is for those who loved the classic game. Of course, the DM is empowered to make changes & rulings to get there. But I can see how a player looking for the kind of 'immersive' experience they felt they got from 3.x because it had that level of rules-consistency across PC/Monster/NPC, might be disappointed. Designing NPCs like PCs is simple enough, but maybe 5e could benefit from some level adjustment tables and a few other optional rules and guidelines to put monsters & PCs more nearly on the same page, like they are in 3.x/PF?

So rather than brute forcing anything remotely resembling intrigue via magical mind control, players might occasionally have to dig deep and come up with something approximating cleverness? No offense, but I hardly see that as a bad thing.

It's a matter of style. Requiring cleverness or 'player skill' is one legitimate way to approach D&D, a classic one, even - but not the only one.

 

[Fanaelialae]

ExploderWizard referred to a charm that lasts for "days or even weeks". A charm that lasts that long is easy enough to reapply if you have a mind to do so, and therefore it can last indefinitely. On the other hand, a one hour charm is fairly impractical to constantly reapply, if only because you probably need to sleep some time and your spell slots are limited.

As for using charm as a means of interrogation, that's simply using charm as a tool, which I never objected to. There are other methods to get the same information, charm is but one option. There are even ways around it, starting with the target not knowing what the PCs want to know (or worse, he believes false information).

Fireball is not the same as a long term dominate. Sure, if you're fighting kobolds, a fireball may end the encounter before it properly begins. But that's a single encounter. Against a high CR dragon, the damage will prove less than stellar, as many on these forums have noted. Long term dominate, on the other hand, is an "I win" button that can be used to overcome not only a series of encounters, but many different types of encounters. A charmed giant can literally fight your battles for you, while a government official can resolve your legal issues.

Persuasion is not an issue because the DM defines the limits. Just as the DM is entitled to say that you can't jump the Grand Canyon regardless of your Athletics check, he can easily say that no Persuasion check is going to convince the lich to give you his phylactery. The same cannot be said of mind-control magic.

Charm as it stands is quite useful, but it isn't the solution to everything. You can't just keep chain casting charm on top of charm to avoid the repercussions of having usurped someone's free will. Rather than just charming the city official into doing your bidding for weeks, you'll need to manipulate him into doing what you want and reserve charm for when you most need an ace up your sleeve. In limiting the duration of mind control effects, they become a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's a matter of style. Requiring cleverness or 'player skill' is one legitimate way to approach D&D, a classic one, even - but not the only one.

Of course. I can see how my previous post could be taken as implying otherwise. It was nothing more than my point of view, as always.