D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Lanefan]

The problem is if the PCs can do this to monsters then the same thing can happen to them as well--and since there's no such thing as an item saving throw anymore, you either have to invent one or track the AC and hp of every object the PCs are carrying. Because they're not going to be OK with magic randomly destroying their gear when the spell description doesn't say it does.

It should be said that I'm not against the idea of item saving throws. I'm just not entirely sure how to go about inventing a system for such a thing.

No need to invent it. Those tables already exist in the 1e DMG - might as well use 'em.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd say it's because equipment being destroyed every time a fireball is thrown is a PITA. Even back in the day, most DMs I knew ignored the rule. When they didn't, it was tedium to resolve, IMO.

It's not like you can't house rule that attended items are damaged. However, I think it makes more sense for streamlining gameplay to not make it RAW.

Resolving a string of item saves can take time, no question there; never mind if an item releases a damaging wild magic surge or similar on failing, thus requiring a second set of saves for everything.

It's rare, but I've seen meltdown resolution take up most of a session.

Won't stop me from doing it, though.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Resolving a string of item saves can take time, no question there; never mind if an item releases a damaging wild magic surge or similar on failing, thus requiring a second set of saves for everything.

It's rare, but I've seen meltdown resolution take up most of a session.

Won't stop me from doing it, though.

And I don't expect the WotC ninjas to show up at your game to try to stop you.

But I do think it's better to have it as something that can be house ruled in (rather than having the majority of tables simply ignore it, as was my experience with previous editions). I mean, can you imagine if AL expected DMs to enforce it?

 

[Lanefan]

But I do think it's better to have it as something that can be house ruled in (rather than having the majority of tables simply ignore it, as was my experience with previous editions). I mean, can you imagine if AL expected DMs to enforce it?

It'd be a pain in AL to be sure, but IMO the whole game shouldn't be designed around what AL wants (which has sometimes seemed the case across various editions going back to RPGA days).

And it'd be trivially easy for AL to opt out of using that set of rules; far easier in terms of net effort spent than making a whole lot of DMs each come up with their own unique versions of what's really a fairly simple thing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It'd be a pain in AL to be sure, but IMO the whole game shouldn't be designed around what AL wants (which has sometimes seemed the case across various editions going back to RPGA days).

And it'd be trivially easy for AL to opt out of using that set of rules; far easier in terms of net effort spent than making a whole lot of DMs each come up with their own unique versions of what's really a fairly simple thing.

I disagree. I don't think it was done that way for AL. I think it was done because most people ignored that rule anyway, even when it did exist. I can understand wanting the rules you like to be included in RAW (and I see no reason it couldn't have been an optional rule, aside from page count limitations). That said, if most people don't like a certain rule (by your own admission it slows things down significantly) then it make sense not to have it be the official default.

 

[Voadam]

Indeed, but IME most conjured, summoned, or evoked fire looks just like the regular stuff.

I don't know, AD&D magical fire from the 1e PHB can be weird.

Fire Shield (Evocation-Alteration)
Level: 4 Components: V, S, M
Range: 0 Casting Time: 4 segments
Duration: 2 rounds + 1 round/level Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: Personal
Explanation/Description: By casting this spell the magic-user appears to immolate himself or herself, but the flames are thin and wispy, shedding light equal only to half that of a normal torch (15’ radius of dim light), and colored blue or green if variation A is cast, violet or blue if variation B is employed.
Any creature striking the spell caster with body or hand-held weapons will inflict normal damage upon the magic-user, but the attacker will take double the amount of damage so inflicted! The other spell powers depend on the variation of the spell used:
A) The flames are hot, and any cold-based attacks will be saved against at +2 on the dice, and either half normal damage or no damage will be sustained; fire-based attacks are normal, but if the magic-user fails to make the required saving throw (if any) against them, he or she will sustain double normal damage. The material component for this variation is a bit of phosphorous.
B) The flames are cold, and any fire-based attack will be saved against at +2 on the dice, and either half normal damage or no damage will be sustained; cold-based attacks are normal, but if the magic-user fails to make the required saving throw (if any) against them, he or she will sustain double normal damage. The material component for this variation is a live firefly or glow worm or the tail portions of 4 dead ones.

Fire Trap (Evocation)
Level: 4 Components: V, S, M
Range: Touch Casting Time: 3 rounds
Duration: Permanent until Saving Throw: ½
discharged
Area of Effect: Object touched
Explanation/Description: Any closable item (book, box, bottle, chest, coffer, coffin, door, drawer, and so forth) is affected by a fire trap spell, but the item so trapped cannot have a second spell such as hold portal or wizard lock placed upon it except as follows: if a fire trap/hold portal is attempted, only the spell first cast will work, and the other will be negated (both negated if cast simultaneously). If a fire trap is cast after a wizard lock, the former is negated, if both are cast simultaneously both are negated, and if a wizard lock is cast after placement of a fire trap there is a 50% chance that both spells will be negated. A knock spell will not affect a fire trap in any way — as soon as the offending party enters/touches, the trap will discharge. The caster can use the trapped object without discharging it. When the trap is discharged there will be an explosion of 5’ radius, and all creatures within this area must make saving throws versus magic. Damage is 1-4 hit points plus 1 hit point per level of the magic-user who cast the spell, or one-half the total amount for creatures successfully saving versus magic. The item trapped is NOT harmed by this explosion. There is only 50% of the normal chance to detect a fire trap, and failure to remove it when such action is attempted detonates it immediately. To place this spell, the caster must trace the outline of the closure with a bit of sulphur or saltpeter.

Wall Of Fire (Evocation)
Level: 4 Components: V, S, M
Range: 6” Casting Time: 4 segments
Duration: Special Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: Special
Explanation/Description: This spell differs from the fifth level druid spell, wall of fire (q.v.) only as indicated above and as stated below: the flame color is either violet or reddish blue, base damage is 2-12 hit points (plus 1 hit point per level), the radius of the ring-shaped wall of fire is 1” + ¼” per level of experience of the magic user casting it, and the material component of the spell is phosphorus.

 

[HammerMan]

How about this from Swasbuckler Rogue?

Panache
At 9th level, your charm becomes extraordinarily beguiling. As an action, you can make a Charisma (Persuasion) check contested by a creature's Wisdom (Insight) check. The creature must be able to hear you, and the two of you must share a language.

If you succeed on the check and the creature is hostile to you, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you and can't make opportunity attacks against targets other than you. This effect lasts for 1 minute, until one of your companions attacks the target or affects it with a spell, or until you and the target are more than 60 feet apart.

If you succeed on the check and the creature isn't hostile to you, it is charmed by you for 1 minute. While charmed, it regards you as a friendly acquaintance. This effect ends immediately if you or your companions do anything harmful to it.

It's not even magic!

and that would be what my dad did in real life ll the time. I consider him a scumbag for it. It is also what 1/3 the sales teams I have worked with (estimated number) have done, and likewise I think of them (not all salesmen those that use quick wit and fast words to get people to do things they don't want or wouldn't normally do) as scumbags... the fact that every example of a conman I have ever run into in the real world was ALSO some what of a relationship preditor (again not all sales people...the con men sales people) may color my perception.

 

[Remathilis]

and that would be what my dad did in real life ll the time. I consider him a scumbag for it. It is also what 1/3 the sales teams I have worked with (estimated number) have done, and likewise I think of them (not all salesmen those that use quick wit and fast words to get people to do things they don't want or wouldn't normally do) as scumbags... the fact that every example of a conman I have ever run into in the real world was ALSO some what of a relationship preditor (again not all sales people...the con men sales people) may color my perception.

There's a reason the gentleman spy/scoundrel/thief is a dying archetype.

 

[payn]

It'd be a pain in AL to be sure, but IMO the whole game shouldn't be designed around what AL wants (which has sometimes seemed the case across various editions going back to RPGA days).

And it'd be trivially easy for AL to opt out of using that set of rules; far easier in terms of net effort spent than making a whole lot of DMs each come up with their own unique versions of what's really a fairly simple thing.

I think its better they plan for AL and you can just insert 1E rules as you see fit.

 

[payn]

I disagree. I don't think it was done that way for AL. I think it was done because most people ignored that rule anyway, even when it did exist. I can understand wanting the rules you like to be included in RAW (and I see no reason it couldn't have been an optional rule, aside from page count limitations). That said, if most people don't like a certain rule (by your own admission it slows things down significantly) then it make sense not to have it be the official default.

My guess is since 3E expected PC ability to function to include piles of magic items, destroying them on a regular basis would be a crappy thing to experience over and over. Also, folks just want a faster running game. Very few folks are like Lenefan who think spending any significant time of a session figuring out cascading explosions is a good use of their gaming time.

I do like the idea of removing all +x items form the game so magic items are not part of the game math. I think that would be a step in the right direction for everybody except the treadmill math fans.