|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 5:16AM
#21
|
|
|
just as a thought...
if y ou did have a save vs spell for this and other effects, what about having a level difference modifier for the save.
a target that is 1 level lower than the caster has to make saves with a -1 penalty
a target that is 2 levels higher than the caster has to make a save with a +2 bonus
this way high level casters get to effect low level tartgets more eaily, with their awesome cosmic powers, and low level casters try toi effect higher level targets with their no so awesome comic powers
like i said - just a thought
Yeah, but since the idea of the HP limit was to limit the effectiveness of certain spells then we have to ask if this has something like an equivalent effect. The answer is no. A +1 or +2 on a save isn't nothing, but it is a vastly less steep penalty than "you can't do that."
In the case of Charm Person my suggestion is to just eliminate the whole "must have more than 10 hit points to get a save" clause. I don't see any real justification for letting the wizard auto-charm anyone under any circumstances. The "the victim remembers being charmed" is a pretty serious limiter on its utility compared to past editions, but still.
If it seems like such a version is too weak, well, I would suggest level scaling on the results. Throw in a level differential on what the effects are. Charming equal or higher level foes allows them to remember being charmed and only provides a relatively small benefit like a favorable reaction modifier. It could be useful in this case but not overly so. For targets at or a bit below the caster's level they don't remember being charmed and are always friendly. For considerably lower level targets they could remain charmed for a long period of time and then only get a save now and then to escape the charm. They might also behave in a way VERY favorable to the caster, doing almost anything they want that isn't obviously immediate suicide.
That makes the spell quite effective, situationally, but the DM can still effectively limit the impact of the spell, and in effect makes it a family of more powerful effects, saving the game from needing higher level versions. I could also see limiting the types of targets based on level difference. Non-humanoid monsters for instance would require being close to or at the level of the monster (maybe just give a level adjustment to monsters, so say humanoids are normal, animals and such get a +1 level, other 'natural' monsters that live in the world get +3 and extra-planar type beings get +5). That brings back the old "Charm Monster" type concept where it is a higher level spell without needing a whole other spell.
Lots of alternatives exist. I think the hit point threshold concept is decent, but the implementation is a bit questionable.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 5:54AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
OP, Definitely going to say just that if I ever play a wizard. Medhia, I have done this. It took about 3 gaming sessions until one of the players said "I feel sick to my stomach. I don't think I can play this character anymore.". The group wanted to play evil characters and I just took normal adventure settings and replaced all of the orcs with female and young. I let them realize that all of the males were out raiding. I think it was the description of the orcish baby crying over the corpse of its mother that did them in. They haven't asked to play evil alignments since.
Your guys are just too nice. The people I play with would kill the females enslave the older kids and leave the rest to fend for themselves as they went out to find the missing males. That is if they weren't in the mood to use them in place of clay pidgeons. (pull!)
I don't actually think orcs would cry over their dead mother's corpse though.
the scenario is unrealistic to start with.
becouse we all know orcs take their woman along in their camps as they go to war.
becouse orc babies make cood stew.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 7:53AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2007
|
I like to challenge the role of the "evil" races.
Me too :D My iconic first level game is defend a pass against a kobold horde... that is defending his home :D With olds, womens and youngs at the end of the game, explaining to the pjs what they have done :D
And then Martial was a new exciting new source of power, its practitioners manipulating the energies emanating from the plane of oiled-up burly weightlifters.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 8:26AM
#24
|
|
|
I like to challenge the role of the "evil" races.
Me too :D My iconic first level game is defend a pass against a kobold horde... that is defending his home :D With olds, womens and youngs at the end of the game, explaining to the pjs what they have done :D
It is definitely one sort of game to go with. Can be pretty fun for some people, not so much for others. Lots of ways to spin things. Even the most evil humanoid hordes have 'innocent' non-combatants, presumably.
You could have a setup where the 'good' PC races are really oppressive and encroaching on or enslaving the 'evil' humanoid races. You could go with one where the PCs are fighting on the side of the 'evil' races (which again might be really evil or just victims, etc). You could have one where neither side is good or evil but there is just an insurmountable difference between them and they compete for resources, or the gods of each side spur them on to fight (that could be interesting, maybe leading to a 'down with the gods' thing). Or you could spin it as a tragic war that can be averted or stopped if everyone can be convinced to make peace. Any of those could use a "do you massacre the innocents" scenario for various purposes.
IME the coolest way to handle it overall is let the players devise their own viewpoint on it and use that to push things in various directions. They could play it out as being the true good people that don't do stuff like that and either in the end it leads to peace or bites them in the behind later when the humanoids decide they are weak. They could play it out as being ruthless but "doing distasteful things for a higher good" with all the possible impact to their PCs conscious later on (or rewards for their loyalty). Or it could play out as the PCs become corrupted, disillusioned, or whatever.
I will say though it can lead to a somewhat serious and even disheartening tone to the game. I'd at least always take cues from the players on that so it stays fun.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 9:03AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
Abdul,
Definitely would take cues as well. The moral issue can be fun but is not for everyone or even every game.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 9:11AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
I rebember a fun cartoon of dork tower about the abuse of skill diplomacy.
I suggest different degrees of relations with nPCs.
Mortal enemy - hostile - dislike - neutral - friendly - loyal - soulmate.
Usually most of monsters are hostile but civilician nPCs are neutral o better. Charming spell can change some degrees, but wit limited effects. Hobgoblins sentinels can´t become your friends and allow you cross the dark gate to go to cascade of hellfire to throw the evil Parees Hilltown´s cursed ring.
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 9:22AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2004
|
The way the spells are written you are correct, I'm not sure they meant it that way. In all editions hit point rescrictions where always based on Max hit points not current hit points.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 10:38AM
#28
|
|
|
Think about it...
Linking a spell effect to health becomes offensive when violence is encouraged to force the compliance of a powerful foe or NPC. Auto-failure for a powerful adversary reduced to 10hp or lower might seem reasonable, but the implications of deliberately slapping around an NPC until they become vulnerable to Charm Person are horrendous.
It's a spell where you remove someone's free will and replace it with your own preferences, and you're worried about the mere physical violence that could occur?
When the game is full of physical violence?
And being physically violent to a person essentially means all you can do is make them treat you like "a person I don't mind" whereas, if you're not violent, they might consider you "my best friend EVER"
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 11:00AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
I'm pretty sure slapping a monster around is the kind of thing that will give you disadvantage in later interactions, so all charm person is doing is resetting things to the way they would be if you talked first (unless the monster attacks you first, in which case 'I thump him until he sees reason' is not so bad).
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 4:49AM
#30
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure slapping a monster around is the kind of thing that will give you disadvantage in later interactions, so all charm person is doing is resetting things to the way they would be if you talked first (unless the monster attacks you first, in which case 'I thump him until he sees reason' is not so bad).
I agree with similar reasoning. If you have engaged in hostile activity with a creature, I think it's reasonable to put the DC of many kinds of social interactions very high, perhaps to the point of impossibility (making advantage meaningless). At this point I would see "charmed" more to mean "beaten into submission" than "desperately in love", and interpret accordingly. The spell does say that you are seen "in the best possible light in the present circumstances". The best possible light is pretty different if you just smacked them around.
It may be effective, for example, to drop a target to below 10 hit points, cast charm person, and use intimidation to interrogate them.
If your plan is to ask them out for coffee afterwards...then not so much.
But you might also be able to bluff them into thinking it was all a big mistake.
Regardless, I think the place to investigate this further is in skills rather than the spell description, where you can talk more generally about how the use of social skills interacts with enemies that you've been fighting.
|
|
|
