Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RigaMortus" data-source="post: 930705" data-attributes="member: 1077">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?</blockquote>

Verification