Charm Person clairification...

[RigaMortus]

From the Charm Spell:

If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by the character or the character's allies, however, he receives a +5 bonus on his saving throw.

What is meant by "threatened" in the above statement? I take this as a literal meaning, where as my DM took it as a DnD defined meaning.

The literal meaning, to me, means that if the person you are trying to Charm "percieves" you as a threat, he gets the bonus.

The DnD meaning of "threaten" would be (using the Glossary in the PHB), A character threatens the area into which it can make a melee attack, even when it is not a character's action.

The literal meaning of "threaten" is much more broader, in that, if you encounter a BBEG he is automatically going to perceive you as a threat, and he would get that +5 bonus on his saving throw.

The DnD meaning of "threaten" is much more narrower, in that, if you encounter a BBEG, he would only get the +5 bonus IF you or your allies are currently attacking him or are within melee range (re: threatened area) of the BBEG.

Whose interpretation is correct here?

[Game specific example to follow]

 

[DreamChaser]

I could actually go either way on this.

Imagine that you're partially surrounded by people with weapons (which unless its a monk, would have to be in hand to threaten). You suddenly start feeling very positively toward one of these aggressors friends. I think you'd have a better chance of resisting.

But I think that longer distance "threats" like mr archer pointing a knocked arrow at you from 50 paces is pretty threatening too.

DC

 

[RigaMortus]

Here is the in-game situation which brought this up...

The party defeated some goblins via a Sleep spell and tied them up. We woke them up one at a time to question them, but they would not cooperate and decided to yell for help. We quickly dispatched of them when they did this.

We proceeded further into the dungeon, and got attacked a few more times in the process. I cast Invisibility on myself and advanced further in the dungeon while my companions finished the current combat. I came upon a few humans (one of which was the BBEG) and some of his underlings. I asked the DM what they were doing, and he said just standing around talking. I specifically asked if they looked hostile or looked as if they were in a defensive stance or if they were talking nonchalantly. The DM said that they didn't appear to be acting in an agressive manner. This was just for me to confirm if they heard the cries for help or not, which it appears they did not.

So I proceed to get closer, within casting distance, but I make a little noise when doing so and the lackey's go to investigate. I beleive the BBEG also heard the noise, but he remained in his position and still did not appear aggressive.

At this point, my companions were catching up to me, so I wanted to Charm the BBEG before he saw my friends. While Invisible I cast the spell on him and he failed his save (barely). This, of course, made me visible. I asked him to call off his lackeys and let us talk. Which he did...

We had a few rounds of talk, but ultimately decided to get into combat because his minions were re-positioning themselves. So Charm basically broke. During the combat, one of his lackeys tried to Charm one of my companions. I argued that my companion should get a +5 bonus because this person is considered a "threat" to us. She took agressive actions against us, casting offensive spells and what not. So we all "perceived" her as a threat, even though we weren't withing threat range of her.

The DM argued that if this is the case, that a "threat" is based on perception rather than the DnD defition of it, then the BBEG would have gotten the +5 bonus against me too. I said that he wouldn't have because he did not see me (I was invisible) or my allies, so there would be no reason for him to feel threatened by someone that he does not know is there. He rebutted that the BBEG would have perceived ANYONE who came into that area as a threat.

Now to me, that last statement is a cop out. I see his point, but then that makes Charm Person effectively USELESS. I could declare that from this point on, I consider EVERYONE a threat, and therefore get a +5 bonus everytime someone tries to cast Charm Person on me, whether I see them or not.

At this point, he argued that is why he took the DnD definition of what constitutes a "threat". So the ONLY time you get the +5 vs. Charm Person would be if (a) you are currently being attacked by the caster of Charm Person OR their "perceived" allies or (b) are within their threaten area.

Now technically, this would NEVER happen. You can't cast Charm Person at the exact same time someone is being attacked because combat is based on rounds, and everyone has their own turn. You could argue that, on every round, everyone goes at the same time, but then you would have to backtrack...

Example:

I start the current round. I cast Charm Person on the BBEG. He fails his save.
My ally goes, and gets within threat range of the BBEG.
Now the BBEG already made his save and failed, but now we must backtrack because he is currently being threatened now, and since we ruled that all actions happen at the same time, he would be threatened as I cast Charm Person, even though he already rolled for it and failed...

You see what I mean? I beleive they call that a Catch 22. Or a Paradox.

This is why I always took the literal meaning of "threat", because you would NEVER come into an instance where you cast Charm at the same time an attack is going off on an enemy without having to do possible backtracks.

Sorry for the long post... Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[Spatula]

I interpret "threat" to be in combat with the caster, or under some immeadiate danger at the hands of the caster (including the caster's allies in both cases). In previous editions of the game, the charm target got a bonus to the saving throw equal to the amount of damage dealt to the target by the caster and his allies, so IMO the bonus is meant to discourage the spell's use in a fight, or when the target is held at swordpoint.

Your DM's take is too literal, I think, and makes little pratical sense as you point out.

 

[LokiDR]

I'll agree with Spatula. "Threat" seems to be intimidating or directly confronting the enemy. If you say "hey, what's up?" you aren't being a threat unless a) you or your friends have already attacke b) you are in a place you obviously shouldn't be (cleric of Pelor at a human sacrifice) or c) they are really paranoid and didn't expect other people to be around (you walk into a secret meeting and the leader is paranoid)

Threat means a bit more than combat, but not too much. Situations b) and c) shouldn't come up that much.

 

[RigaMortus]

c) they are really paranoid and didn't expect other people to be around (you walk into a secret meeting and the leader is paranoid)

Well this is pretty much what happened in my case. So what should the outcome have been? The BBEG would have considered anyone who came into the room a "threat". However, I was invisible at the time of casting the spell, so I effectively wasn't there to be perceived as a threat. When the spell hit him, I became visible. Would he get the +5 bonus or not?

 

[Christian]

The BBEG would have considered anyone who came into the room a "threat".

That's not what 'threaten' means in common parlance, either, though ...

threaten
1. To express a threat against.
...
threat
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.

(From dictionary.com.)

So, the 'common-language' interpretation of the language in the Charm Person spell description is that the +5 bonus applies when the caster or his allies are either attacking or 'expressing an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment'. I suppose there's still some room for interpretation on the DM's part, but not a whole lot. "Have a nice day!" "Don't you threaten me!" "Um, what?" (Caveat-your DM's interpretation could be twisted to fit into some of the lower-down definitions of 'threaten' and 'threat'. But it seems pretty clear to me that the intention of the designers was to base the save bonus off of the expressed attitude of the caster and/or the caster's allies, not on the paranoia or lack thereof of the target.)

 

[rtricher]

Well IMO charm isn't a combat or offensive spell and is really not intended to be used on BBEGs anyway I think it is to be used on people who are either indefferent to you or friendly to you in order to make them even friendlier so that you can either get away with more, turn better profit or what not. I think that the idea that someone whose butt you just kicked-or are about to- can be charmed and will tell you just about anything or let his guard down long enough to get whacked is ludicrous, especially in a dungeon situation.. Your DM's reason may have been a cop-out but I don't think so.. even so the fact that you are invisble and casting a charm on the guy -- hmm?? that's funny I feel like being slighty nicer to that invis--holy smokes there is someone here.. -- I mean come on you'd have better luck bluffing the fact that you are one of his cronies and that you need his help.. then you could charm him cause he's on your side then... IMO

 

[LokiDR]

Well this is pretty much what happened in my case. So what should the outcome have been? The BBEG would have considered anyone who came into the room a "threat". However, I was invisible at the time of casting the spell, so I effectively wasn't there to be perceived as a threat. When the spell hit him, I became visible. Would he get the +5 bonus or not?

Yes

If you are in a secret meeting discussing the overthrow of the government and you think they are going to be onto your plans, you are not going to trust a person who you have never seen pop out of thin air.

 

[LokiDR]

(Caveat-your DM's interpretation could be twisted to fit into some of the lower-down definitions of 'threaten' and 'threat'. But it seems pretty clear to me that the intention of the designers was to base the save bonus off of the expressed attitude of the caster and/or the caster's allies, not on the paranoia or lack thereof of the target.)

If a person will not trust anyone, why would a 1st level spell change that?

In this case, charming a minion and then getting an introduction to BBEG and then charming him wouldn't impose the +5 save problem. BBEG might trust a person who was reference by a minion, but not one that just went *poof* in front of him.