Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khur" data-source="post: 507428" data-attributes="member: 5583">More valuable points! Thanks Olive. My question about siege engineers wasn't a sarcastic one, but a serious question. Yet, it's still arguable. Many "siege engineers" in history were as good or better fighters than other prominent figures on the battlefield. Perhaps they were just high-level experts? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />One must note also that Profession could be used for Profession (soldier). Alternately, one should also note Knowledge (war), which I think appears in Sword and Fist. Either of these skills might be used to make the expert tactician/strategist, a great general, or what have you. A fighter gets neither of these skills, yet is supposed to be the greatest battle mind in the game. That's what left an opening for FFG to create the commander alternate core class. Despite the fact that one could argue an aristocrat is the proper class for a general, I think the lack of these skills in a fighter's repertoire, similar to the lack of Intimidate, is an omission and a flaw that I hope 3.5e addresses. It's hardly unbalancing to add these skills to the fighter, especially if the DM gives no bonus skill points.Back on topic: Excellent points. However, I assert that just because someone knows of enchantments, doesn't mean that it follows he'll know or deduce he was under one. That doesn't follow the logic of, "The easiest answer is probably the right one." This assertion is true, unless the world is rife with enchanters, and therefore everyone is so familiar with enchantments that there can be no mistake. Persons, according to their natures, can feel strange connections with other persons at any time, or take pity, or what have you. This brings me to your other point, which is exceptionally valuable here.The NPC's attitude most certainly should affect how the charm is perceived after it wears off. A hostile creature would certainly notice its own shift in perceptions, unless it is incredibly stupid. On the other hand, using charm on a hostile entity is inherently unsubtle. Thus, I took for granted that the spell, if subtle, must be used on a creature that would not notice a big step in its reactions to a character later. I didn't mention that assumption in specific though. Thanks for bringing that to light.[EDIT] Using charm person to get a discount from a merchant so big that it actually hurts the merchant is inherently unsubtle as well. On the other hand, using it to get what one might with a successful Bluff or Diplomacy roll in haggling, say 10% or so, is subtle. The merchant is likely to remember that he took a liking to the enchanter for some reason, and the enchanter was a good haggler. Used this way, charm could save a PC a lot of money over the course of many trading sessions, yet present little risk of being caught. Bilking a merchant out of a lot of money is simply foolish in light of this notion. An intelligent enchanter does well to realize this point early on.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification