tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7219169252198225629.post6470123295127654683..comments2024-03-26T11:13:28.399-07:00Comments on Magician's Manse: The Extent of Charm PersonAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05494391031541363595noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7219169252198225629.post-78551809338287025512012-07-19T11:57:34.214-07:002012-07-19T11:57:34.214-07:00I am, Brendan. What I'm not disinterested in, ...I am, Brendan. What I'm not disinterested in, though, is game balance in the slightest.<br /><br />The thing I'm surprise no one brought up, is Hold Person, a spell which I still have no idea what to think of.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494391031541363595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7219169252198225629.post-67068816573862898872012-07-19T11:41:14.779-07:002012-07-19T11:41:14.779-07:00Friends is not an OD&D spell though, is it? I ...<i>Friends</i> is not an OD&D spell though, is it? I think Ian is interested in this purely as an OD&D exercise (he can correct me if I am wrong).Necropraxishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716340801054739658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7219169252198225629.post-5407443028877692182012-07-19T11:34:43.888-07:002012-07-19T11:34:43.888-07:00I agree with Paul here, and would add that I'm...I agree with Paul here, and would add that I'm not sure looking at the Ring of Mammal control is useful for elucidating Charm Person. What in the description of the Ring of Mammal Control makes you think it is relevant, other than also being a "control" effect? The Potion of Human Control does explicitly reference Charm Person, so I can see that connection there.Necropraxishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716340801054739658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7219169252198225629.post-45915092155443924442012-07-19T11:27:15.127-07:002012-07-19T11:27:15.127-07:00I think what you're missing is the game balanc...I think what you're missing is the game balance perspective. If you can Charm a 10th level Fighter and tell him to fight for you, it's better than a save-or-die spell because you not only got rid of an enemy but you also gained a powerful ally. <br /><br />I would say the Charm Person makes the person a super-loyal henchman. He never rolls loyalty, but might have to roll morale and is susceptible to fear effects. If you order him to do some act which is self-destructive he gets another save. What can you get up to and still not allow a new save?<br /><br />"Give me all your valuables and tell me everything about any magic items you have."<br />"Tell me about your tribe, its strength and numbers, treasure, anything."<br />"Go kill your brother over there."<br />"Drink this strength potion (actually you know it's poison)"<br />"Hold off that mob of villagers for a few minutes."<br /><br />What you can't do: <br /><br />"Hold off that dragon for a few minutes."<br />"Go jump off that cliff"<br />"Drink this strength potion (after discussing with your friends in front of him that it's actually poison)"<br /><br />As you see it's not very limited, more a roleplaying thing. <br /><br />To compare, the 1st level M-U spell Friends just raises your Charisma by a lot, which has the effect of making it easy to recruit hirelings and keep them as long as the spell lasts at least. <br /><br />Then again, I could see the rationale behind making Charm Lv1 work against a person and offer basic loyalty, Charm Lv4 gives basic loyalty from a monster or domination of a person, Charm Lv7 gives domination of a monster or mass domination of persons, Charm Lv9 gives domination of a few monsters or some special area effect over persons (virus charm, long duration, whatever).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7219169252198225629.post-84430908419011314502012-07-19T10:06:41.997-07:002012-07-19T10:06:41.997-07:00Having complete control to the extent that the con...Having complete control to the extent that the controlled individual will attack its allies is probably the easiest way to handle things in play.<br /><br />Going purely but the text, however, the clause "even to having the controlled mammals attack the others with it which are not controlled" <i>enlarges</i> the idea of complete control for mammals of animal intelligence, rather than <i>clarifying</i> complete control for Charm Person. For intelligent charmed creatures, I might require a reaction roll to convince them to attack allies or do anything evidently against their self-interest.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12096724870715714696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7219169252198225629.post-23035911442660699972012-07-18T22:22:24.231-07:002012-07-18T22:22:24.231-07:00Ok maybe I didn't specify what I meant, which ...Ok maybe I didn't specify what I meant, which was what am I missing as far as the text is concerned.<br /><br />I'm not terribly interested in later editions with this argument, nor have your cited any instances where permanent items are always more powerful than one-use items. Similarly, what else would you take "generally the same" to mean when followed up by a list of exceptions?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05494391031541363595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7219169252198225629.post-6927026485260293832012-07-18T22:07:41.520-07:002012-07-18T22:07:41.520-07:00What are you missing? AFAIC, the difference in bot...What are you missing? AFAIC, the difference in both literal definition and common usage between the words "influence" and "control" is decisive. <br /><br />As for the magic item argument:<br /><br />Firstly, the phrase "generally the same effect" is far too weak to suggest that they be treated as the same except for cited differences.<br /><br />Secondly, permanent items are commonly regarded as more potent than single use stuff like potions and spells, so the fact that control is total with the Ring of Mammal Control suggests nothing about the extent of control offered by a similarly named potion.<br /><br />Thirdly (and most importantly, given your argument)... even if a ring was a reliable guide to interpreting a potion, the text of the potion inherits from the spell, not vice versa, <b>so one's ruling on how the spell works would determine the efficacy of the potion... not the reverse.</b><br /><br />Finally, most gamer's opinions on how a vaguely described spell (or rule) should be ruled to function depend on their campaign experience with the questioned article. That's why subsequent editions of the game have been much more specific about the extent of the influence of this particular spell. This provides evidence as to how one might rule if cold-playing the earliest edition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com