D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Lanefan]

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.

With Fire Shield it seems the "flames" are just a visual warning to attackers that something weird is going on, and the cold flames in particular would come as a surprise! I'm not sure I've ever seen this one cast in play.

Fire Trap we've kept for legacy reasons, but I've never really bought into it not harming the item being protected. That said, it is a 4th-level spell which otherwise does pathetic damage for its level (it could be a 1st or 2nd-level spell just by damage) and so I can see the does-not-harm-item piece being a decent trade-off. Making something blasty like Fireball work using the same trade-off, however, would IMO bump it up to being an 8th or 9th level spell meaning it'd almost never see play. Fire Trap rarely if ever gets cast by the PCs in any case; it's most often seen as something the opposition has set up, and even then it's very uncommon.

And today I learned something. I've never read Wall of Fire closely enough to see that the flames are coloured like that - both as player and DM I've always visualized the flames as being normal fire colour both in the Druid and MU versions - and this is one that gets cast (relatively speaking) all the time. As I've been narrating it as normal fire colour all this time I guess I'd better update my spell description to suit.

 

[Maxperson]

no, but nothing should ever be considered good or neutral that takes you and forces a mind set... again in my OP i spell out I am not requesting things be removed. I am trying to look at them in a modern light.

Even in a modern light those spells are not inherently evil and remain nothing more than a tool to be used(or not). There are just fewer good/neutral uses for them.

 

[HammerMan]

To be honest, I have to same opinion on PC taunt abilities, like 4e's infamous "Come and Get It" fighter ability or other "aggro control" powers. You don't move my pieces in the board, I don't move yours.

yeah I can't see come and get it being a problem even slightly if you allow charm person, dominate person and suggestion in your game.

 

[HammerMan]

Even in a modern light those spells are not inherently evil and remain nothing more than a tool to be used(or not). There are just fewer good/neutral uses for them.

I'm sorry but no. forceing your will on others (dominate and suggestion), and even just magic ruffies (Charm and friends) are pretty evil.

 

[Maxperson]

With Fire Shield it seems the "flames" are just a visual warning to attackers that something weird is going on, and the cold flames in particular would come as a surprise! I'm not sure I've ever seen this one cast in play.

Fire Trap we've kept for legacy reasons, but I've never really bought into it not harming the item being protected. That said, it is a 4th-level spell which otherwise does pathetic damage for its level (it could be a 1st or 2nd-level spell just by damage) and so I can see the does-not-harm-item piece being a decent trade-off. Making something blasty like Fireball work using the same trade-off, however, would IMO bump it up to being an 8th or 9th level spell meaning it'd almost never see play. Fire Trap rarely if ever gets cast by the PCs in any case; it's most often seen as something the opposition has set up, and even then it's very uncommon.

Fire trap in 1e/2e was 2nd level

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sorry but no. forceing your will on others (dominate and suggestion), and even just magic ruffies (Charm and friends) are pretty evil.

Except not. If someone is about to murder a child and you need to dominate him in order to make him stop, that's a good act plain and simple.

 

[Lanefan]

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).

In 3e that recalculate-modifiers piece was a bloody nuisance, to be sure; and I know this because the 3e game I played in used 1e-like rules for item destruction for a while.

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)?

Several things here:

If items are easier to destroy the flip side is that there's space for the DM to give more of them out; and everyone likes getting new toys. I've always seen magic items as being easy-come easy-go.

As for damage dealt, the item saves are not in any way based on the h.p. total of the carrier but instead on the actual damage caused by the spell or effect. What this means is that regardless of whether it's a 15-h.p. MU or a 95-h.p. Fighter getting hit, assuming both failed their saves that fireball did 23 points of damage to each, and potentially wrecked whatever they might be carrying/wearing.

I also build in some cut-offs. If an effect does 10 points or less on a failed save, then with rare exceptions (e.g. a piece of paper in hand if hit by fire) item saves are waived. At about 11-20 points many saves are at a bonus. Over about 40 points items might be saving at a penalty, and all of this depends on the situation and-or type of effect.

Plate armour failing a save doesn't mean it's become molten slag. Usually it implies that various connecting bits of it e.g. the leather straps have burned away and-or some of the metal pieces have warped, disenchanting its magic and rendering the armour unwearable in any case without repair. And a flametongue sword would probably be immune to fire damage in any case.

 

[Lanefan]

Fire trap in 1e/2e was 2nd level

The Druid version. Both @Voadam and I are looking at the MU version, which is 4th level.

 

[Voadam]

There are only rolls when the outcome is in doubt, and only the players can decide when that occurs for their PCs. The DM isn't in charge of playing the PCs, so it would be a breach of the social contract for him to use a social skill to make a PC do something. At that point he is in effect playing the PC, which is a major no no.

That is the part that does not seem defined in the books. If the table agreement ruling is that social checks work on PCs similar to how spells do then it can be an outcome that is in doubt until a check is made. If the table agreement ruling is that PCs decide whether they can be influenced or not then it is something a PC can unilaterally veto regardless of a roll.

I cannot find an explicit statement in the rules on how social skills interact with PCs, just how they can interact with NPCs or others and it all seems suggestive rather than defined.

5e PH 185 for social interactions which is mostly about how to do so and talks about the DM might call for checks to determine NPC reactions. Page 178 for Charisma and social interaction skills which talk about influencing "others".

5e DMG page 237 is for ability checks and page 244 for social interactions and I do not see any discussion of whether it works differently for a PC trying to trick another another PC for example.

In 3e for example there were things in the social skills that explicitly could affect PCs and effects that explicitly could not.

I don't see that in 5e, it seems to be a rulings not rules situation.

 

[Voadam]

With Fire Shield it seems the "flames" are just a visual warning to attackers that something weird is going on, and the cold flames in particular would come as a surprise! I'm not sure I've ever seen this one cast in play.

It is quite powerful.

"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!"

Normally a Magic-User does not want to be anywhere near being attacked in melee and being struck, and if they are they will quickly be taken out even with a fire shield. However think of an ancient red dragon using the option that halves or negates cold attacks and inflicts double melee damage on attackers. They will usually be happy to wade into melee. Liches too.

And today I learned something. I've never read Wall of Fire closely enough to see that the flames are coloured like that - both as player and DM I've always visualized the flames as being normal fire colour both in the Druid and MU versions - and this is one that gets cast (relatively speaking) all the time. As I've been narrating it as normal fire colour all this time I guess I'd better update my spell description to suit.

And then there is the more naturalistic looking druidic wall of fire

"Wall of Fire (Evocation)
Level: 5 Components: V, S, M
Range: 8” Casting Time: 7 segments
Duration: Special Saving Throw: None
Area of Effect: Special
Explanation/Description: The wall of fire spell brings forth a blazing curtain of magical fire of shimmering color — yellow-green or amber in case of druidical magic. The wall of fire inflicts 4 to 16 hit points of damage, plus 1 hit point of damage per level of the spell caster, upon any creature passing through it. Creatures within 1” of the wall take 2-8 hit points of damage, those within 2” take 1-4 hit points of damage. Creatures especially subject to fire may take additional damage, and undead always take twice normal damage. Only the side of the wall away from the spell caster will inflict damage. The opaque wall of fire lasts for as long as the druid concentrates on maintaining it, or 1 round per level of experience of the druid in the event he or she does not wish to concentrate upon it. The spell creates a sheet of flame up to 2” square per level of the spell caster, or as a ring with a radius of up to ½” per level of experience from the druid to its flames, and a height of 2”. The former is stationary, while the latter moves as the druid moves."