D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Hexmage-EN]

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.

So the problem isn't just Charm spells, but persuasion in general?

 

[Voadam]

So the problem isn't just Charm spells, but persuasion in general?

Anything with the same mechanical implications?

So anything that mechanically makes them "regards you as a friendly acquaintance".

 

[Remathilis]

Anything with the same mechanical implications?

So anything that mechanically makes them "regards you as a friendly acquaintance".

So how do you recommend social interaction be handled? Are we back to pure "role play it out" since dice rolls that make people like you is bad?

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

I think there's truth to that, although core 3.x did have Mordenkainen's Disjunction, which could permanently wreck all of your magical gear. While I don't think it was ever used at any of the tables I played at, I've heard some horror stories about high level 3.x games that regularly saw Disjunction used.

Personally, I think it's primarily because the rule is too much work for little to no return.

It can consume a ton of time at the table (not only do you need to make a save for every item, for potentially multiple characters, but afterwards you need to recalculate modifiers and such for anything that was destroyed).

Also, many people don't find the idea of having their favorite magic items constantly destroyed to be particularly enjoyable. It's kind of like a character funnel. They can certainly be fun. But most people don't want to play a funnel for every session of an entire campaign. Even systems that use funnels, like DCC, typically have one at the beginning of the campaign and then that's it until it's time to start a new campaign.

Lastly, the results can be a bit silly. The fighter gets hit by a fireball that only deals a small to moderate amount of his hp total, yet somehow his flametongue great sword and magic plate mail become molten slag as a result (and somehow being drenched in that molten steel doesn't cause the fighter any harm)?

 

[Voadam]

So how do you recommend social interaction be handled? Are we back to pure "role play it out" since dice rolls that make people like you is bad?

How do I recommend it be handled?

In person roleplayed out, or second person abstracted with dice, no results that force a player how to act.

 

[Maxperson]

How do I recommend it be handled?

In person roleplayed out, or second person abstracted with dice, no results that force a player how to act.

Outside of magic or some other similar power, what can force a player to act in any particular manner?

 

[payn]

Lastly, the results can be a bit silly. The fighter gets hit by a fireball that only deals a small to moderate amount of his hp total, yet somehow his flametongue great sword and magic plate mail become molten slag as a result (and somehow being drenched in that molten steel doesn't cause the fighter any harm)?

Oh, I think you are not going to like the answer to that from fans of this type of stuff.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Oh, I think you are not going to like the answer to that from fans of this type of stuff.

I said "can be". Not "inevitably is".

I don't begrudge anyone from using the rule if they enjoy it. I'm simply discussing why I think it isn't an official rule.

 

[Maxperson]

Lastly, the results can be a bit silly. The fighter gets hit by a fireball that only deals a small to moderate amount of his hp total, yet somehow his flametongue great sword and magic plate mail become molten slag as a result (and somehow being drenched in that molten steel doesn't cause the fighter any harm)?

Magic can be specialized, so the flametongue can be immune to its own heat, but still vulnerable to the magical heat other things. And I can tell you from experience(not since 1e), that I have had PCs burned further by metal armor melting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Magic can be specialized, so the flametongue can be immune to its own heat, but still vulnerable to the magical heat other things. And I can tell you from experience(not since 1e), that I have had PCs burned further by metal armor melting.

If the flash of fireball would be so hot that it would be able to instantly melt steel, there is no way in the world that anything biological would ever survive it.

When I said it would be silly if the fireball wouldn't affect items being carried at all, I really just meant stuff that would actually be relatively easily affected by fire, like clothes or unprotected paper.