D&D 5E (2014) Charm, the evil spells

[Baron Opal II]

That would makes sense. But that's not how the rules work. Only harming the target breaks the effect.

Change the rule. It makes sense.

Sure, I'd probably run it as something like that. But then again, wording is nebulous. Can a person you don't even remember meeting qualify as 'friendly acquaintance'?

Sure, why not? I don't particularly like the "it's magic!" excuse, but this is a spell that specifically makes another person like you for a while. Especially since they're not going to do anything they don't really want to.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I think butchery would be an obvious break of the spell. It's only 1st level after all. You friend wouldn't kill your other friends.

And RAW be damned. At the very least it'd give the charmed target a new save to break it.

As far as "remembering" them, if they claim they know you maybe you do. You get a good vibe from them, and maybe you did meet them at the last harvest festival or something. The ale flowed like water, after all. Or, the caster can state right up front that they're new in town, looking for some information, can you help them out? You get a good vibe off of them, so sure, why not?

I have no problem with this.

If the target thinks who the heck is this guy and what does he really want, then the target must have made their save.

I'd go a step further: make it that if the target makes the save and is able to realize the source of the spell the target becomes actively hostile toward that source. In other words, there's a risk involved.

With Dominate, nothing happens on a made save but I already have it that the hostility is baked in on a failed one: "once the spell ends the target is forever hostile to the caster (but may be dominated again)".

 

[Fanaelialae]

Which is truly ridiculous in many ways.

Personally, I don't think it's any more ridiculous than conjuring flame from nothing.

Moreover, I would say it can actually make magic feel more magical. Imagine a scene where the town guard finds several charred bodies inside a library, but nary a page is so much as charred at the edges. Perhaps the bodies were burned and then dragged inside the building, but why? The party mage's expertise is requested, who then determines this could only be the result of magical flames.

 

[Maxperson]

That would makes sense. But that's not how the rules work. Only harming the target breaks the effect.

Yes, but it still only makes them a friendly acquaintance. The more of my friends you butcher, the more things are going to be a flat out no(no outcome in doubt) even if we still remain friendly acquaintances.

If you run that spell as written, it's only at the power level of a 1st level spell. No better than a magic missile or Jump spell. People misuse it a lot and grant it a whole lot more power than it really has.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally, I don't think it's any more ridiculous than conjuring flame from nothing.

Moreover, I would say it can actually make magic feel more magical. Imagine a scene where the town guard finds several charred bodies inside a library, but nary a page is so much as charred at the edges. Perhaps the bodies were burned and then dragged inside the building, but why? The party mage's expertise is requested, who then determines this could only be the result of magical flames.

Conjuring flame is fantastical but I want the flame thus conjured to behave like any other flame if it's real and not so if it's illusory.

Illusory flames don't burn real things. Real flames do, and you don't get to choose what they burn - which means casting a fireball in a library is really going to put a hole in its book inventory.

It's fire, not a smart bomb.

I've some very cynical (and, I hate to say, maybe accurate) ideas on why they ruled it this way, revolving around making magical fire unable to burn down buildings (or destroy treasure) and so that PCs can't lose their precious possessions when themselves set on fire.

 

[Maxperson]

Conjuring flame is fantastical but I want the flame thus conjured to behave like any other flame if it's real and not so if it's illusory.

Illusory flames don't burn real things. Real flames do, and you don't get to choose what they burn - which means casting a fireball in a library is really going to put a hole in its book inventory.

It's fire, not a smart bomb.

I can see designing specialized fire. Like a fire spell that will only burn that which is alive or that which isn't. I don't see a spell where you can pick and choose between both alive and dead as you will. There should be defined terms to how it works.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I can see designing specialized fire. Like a fire spell that will only burn that which is alive or that which isn't. I don't see a spell where you can pick and choose between both alive and dead as you will. There should be defined terms to how it works.

Reading rapidly, I thought you proposed a specialized fire to burn the witch only when alive and stop when she is no longer. Then I opened my eyes, read again, and realized.... it's clearly a missing spell, Alfred's Efficient Ashfree and Smokefree Sorcerous Removal.

 

[Remathilis]

Conjuring flame is fantastical but I want the flame thus conjured to behave like any other flame if it's real and not so if it's illusory.

Illusory flames don't burn real things. Real flames do, and you don't get to choose what they burn - which means casting a fireball in a library is really going to put a hole in its book inventory.

It's fire, not a smart bomb.

I've some very cynical (and, I hate to say, maybe accurate) ideas on why they ruled it this way, revolving around making magical fire unable to burn down buildings (or destroy treasure) and so that PCs can't lose their precious possessions when themselves set on fire.

A particularly nasty DM in the dark days of 2nd edition ran fire and lightning spells with some collateral damage effects. In particular, fireball and lightning bolt tended to melt or damage mundane carried items on failed saves, and magical items required saving throws if their owner failed them. This had the dual effect of making sure enemies fireballed would have melted coins and unsellable gear (not to mention destroyed potions and scrolls) and to destroy PC spellbooks. Lightning bolt also had a nasty habit of magnetizing iron armor, which I'm now pretty sure isn't how it works but back then it was a good way to screw PCs out of armor. I'm pretty sure acid arrows damaged stuff in the same vein.

Needless to say, if you had the slightest inkling you wanted to keep something in the room, you used magic missile and nothing else.

From a metagaming perspective, I'm kinda glad magic no longer targets your stuff or your treasure.

 

[Voadam]

Conjuring flame is fantastical but I want the flame thus conjured to behave like any other flame if it's real and not so if it's illusory.

Illusory flames don't burn real things. Real flames do, and you don't get to choose what they burn - which means casting a fireball in a library is really going to put a hole in its book inventory.

It's fire, not a smart bomb.

I've some very cynical (and, I hate to say, maybe accurate) ideas on why they ruled it this way, revolving around making magical fire unable to burn down buildings (or destroy treasure) and so that PCs can't lose their precious possessions when themselves set on fire.

That depends on the fire.

Magic fire does not work like regular fire in all ways. You can't dispel a normal fire or put it out by punching a concentrating wizard in the face.

In 3e conjuration magic could summon some actual fire from an existing fire or the elemental plane of fire. It would not be subject to spell resistance or dispelling after the spell was completed because it was actual fire. 3e evocation magic could do magical fire effects too but they would be subject to SR and dispelling if they were ongoing (like a wall of fire).

I thought it was really cool in 4e that fireball spheres were grid cubes. It showed how magic tapped into mythos style non-euclidean geometry.

If purple magical fire is summoned, expect it to possibly be a bit different in weird ways compared to a normal wildfire fire.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That depends on the fire.

Magic fire does not work like regular fire in all ways. You can't dispel a normal fire or put it out by punching a concentrating wizard in the face.

In 3e conjuration magic could summon some actual fire from an existing fire or the elemental plane of fire. It would not be subject to spell resistance or dispelling after the spell was completed because it was actual fire. 3e evocation magic could do magical fire effects too but they would be subject to SR and dispelling if they were ongoing (like a wall of fire).

I thought it was really cool in 4e that fireball spheres were grid cubes. It showed how magic tapped into mythos style non-euclidean geometry.

If purple magical fire is summoned, expect it to possibly be a bit different in weird ways compared to a normal wildfire fire.

I feel that if you are creating fire that doesnt behave like regular fire, it should be a different spell. Maybe one of those rare spells from Level Up, ala "Micah's Neutron Firebomb" that just damages living material and leaves everything else alone.