Warlock and Create Thrall

[EggKookoo]

I suppose the answer to a lot of these questions will come down to DM choice, but I wanted to run it by folks.

In my current campaign, the party is traveling across the region in search of various plot items and are being pursued by agents of the BBEG, who are basically tracking them by the havoc they're causing. Whenever the party encounters a village and helps the folks out in some way (which they often need to in order to further the overall plot quest), it disrupts the BBEG's plans and he knows to send his lackeys to the village in an attempt to intercept them. So far the PCs have kept ahead of their pursuers but an NPC Wizard told them that they're causing a great disturbance in the force.

One of my players is running a Warlock (GOO). The last time they helped out a settlement, they did it by killing the abusive gang (calling them warlords is too generous) that held the people in fear. The Warlock used Create Thrall on the one surviving gang member and found out that the gang operated with permission from the BBEG (not really part of his group but he let them run the town because it kept them in control). So the plan was to have the Thrall create a bunch of fake graves and tell the BBEG's men that he and the gang wiped out the PCs in an epic battle, and he was the only one left alive. Then the party would move on to the next point of interest. The idea was to make the BBEG end the chase on the assumption that the PCs were all dead.

Now, I'm cool with this. It feels right from the description of how Create Thrall works, and it's a clever idea. But I'm wondering exactly how much information is communicated to the Warlock. If the Thrall is tortured (say, the BBEG doesn't believe him?), does the Warlock get a sense of that? Is the Thrall completely, 100% enslaved to the Warlock's wishes or is it more like a malicious genie kind of thing, where the Thrall must technically obey but is capable of subverting the Warlock's intentions? For example, he makes the graves but then also somehow drops a clue that they're fake?

I know that the BBEG can just remove curse (someone around must be able to do that), but I'm going to go on the assumption that he doesn't automatically know the gang member is a Thrall. If that happens I want it to be because of something the players overlooked, rather than just "X% he is suspicious of the dude."

tldr: Can a Thrall subvert a Warlock's commands? Can a Thrall "signal" to its Warlock master that it needs help?

[ryan92084]

I suppose the answer to a lot of these questions will come down to DM choice, but I wanted to run it by folks.

In my current campaign, the party is traveling across the region in search of various plot items and are being pursued by agents of the BBEG, who are basically tracking them by the havoc they're causing. Whenever the party encounters a village and helps the folks out in some way (which they often need to in order to further the overall plot quest), it disrupts the BBEG's plans and he knows to send his lackeys to the village in an attempt to intercept them. So far the PCs have kept ahead of their pursuers but an NPC Wizard told them that they're causing a great disturbance in the force.

One of my players is running a Warlock (GOO). The last time they helped out a settlement, they did it by killing the abusive gang (calling them warlords is too generous) that held the people in fear. The Warlock used Create Thrall on the one surviving gang member and found out that the gang operated with permission from the BBEG (not really part of his group but he let them run the town because it kept them in control). So the plan was to have the Thrall create a bunch of fake graves and tell the BBEG's men that he and the gang wiped out the PCs in an epic battle, and he was the only one left alive. Then the party would move on to the next point of interest. The idea was to make the BBEG end the chase on the assumption that the PCs were all dead.

Now, I'm cool with this. It feels right from the description of how Create Thrall works, and it's a clever idea. But I'm wondering exactly how much information is communicated to the Warlock. If the Thrall is tortured (say, the BBEG doesn't believe him?), does the Warlock get a sense of that? Is the Thrall completely, 100% enslaved to the Warlock's wishes or is it more like a malicious genie kind of thing, where the Thrall must technically obey but is capable of subverting the Warlock's intentions? For example, he makes the graves but then also somehow drops a clue that they're fake?

I know that the BBEG can just remove curse (someone around must be able to do that), but I'm going to go on the assumption that he doesn't automatically know the gang member is a Thrall. If that happens I want it to be because of something the players overlooked, rather than just "X% he is suspicious of the dude."

tldr: Can a Thrall subvert a Warlock's commands? Can a Thrall "signal" to its Warlock master that it needs help?

IIRC create thrall basically just imposes the charmed condition which is pretty weak with the benefits of 'can't attack caster' and 'advantage on social interaction rolls'. Contrary to the name it doesn't really create a thrall just a friend with telepathy.

[EggKookoo]

IIRC create thrall basically just imposes the charmed condition which is pretty weak with the benefits of 'can't attack caster' and 'advantage on social interaction rolls'. Contrary to the name it doesn't really create a thrall just a friend with telepathy.

So I guess the question is, can a charmed creature deceive its master?

[WickerNipple]

So I guess the question is, can a charmed creature deceive its master?

They can try. The master has advantange on social interactions, which would include Insight.

[EggKookoo]

They can try. The master has advantange on social interactions, which would include Insight.

Right, so I could also just rule one way or another over long term. I mean, if the Warlock is trying to control the Thrall's behavior over long distance using the telepathic component of the feature, it might get cumbersome to constantly have the Warlock make a roll. Since the Warlock gets advantage on that roll, I might just rule that the Thrall cannot deceive the Warlock unless it involves something that would violate the charmed condition itself.

I'm not talking about during turn-based combat or something (I usually force rolls for most things then). I mean, "Okay, it's been four hours. I check in with my Thrall ten miles back in the town. I ask him if the BBEG's guys have been by and for a general status update." In that case I'd probably just rule the Thrall tells the truth unless the BBEG's guys have actually shown up and put some kind of pressure on him.

[SharkForce]

seems like it's unlikely to matter. the BBEG is likely to want proof (and possibly to animate their corpses into a horrible mockery of life bound to his servitude). the NPC gang member has none, just a hole in the ground that has been refilled.

but yeah, the charmed condition (which is all that thrall officially does) has basically no effects whatsoever beyond being unable to attack you and you get advantage on social checks against them. doesn't make them obey you (unless you influence them using social skills), doesn't make them your friend, certainly doesn't make them want to risk a horrible painful death or torture on your behalf.

so, in other words... if you want create thrall to really have any use in this situation whatsoever, you are going to need to decide what effect you want it to be able to have in your game, because it certainly doesn't remotely do what it says it does in the official rules.

[EggKookoo]

Okay, but what if the Warlock maintained telepathic contact the whole time? He could continually charm the creature's behavior.

[SharkForce]

Okay, but what if the Warlock maintained telepathic contact the whole time? He could continually charm the creature's behavior.

only to the extent that you can persuade someone with social skill checks. if there's absolutely no chance under the sun that someone would in any circumstance, say, agree to single-handedly take on an entire army, then your DC to persuade them is in a best-case scenario 35 as i recall (impossible task). precisely where "impossible task" begins and "nearly impossible" ends is up to your DM of course. but even "nearly impossible" is going to be unrealistic at best unless you use a few other things to increase your chances (glibness and a source of expertise, for example).

[Millstone85]

But I'm wondering exactly how much information is communicated to the Warlock. If the Thrall is tortured (say, the BBEG doesn't believe him?), does the Warlock get a sense of that?The 1st level GOO feature Awakened Mind is worded in a manner that would suggest a one-way deal. The warlock can "telepathically speak to" creatures but it doesn't make the creatures able to answer in the same fashion.
I believe the 14th level GOO feature Create Thrall does not have that limitation. Here, the warlock can "communicate telepathically with" that creature. When the warlock talks in the creature's head, the creature can answer likewise.
Now, can the creature initiate the communication, do they have the warlock's mental phone number? It doesn't really say. Personally, I would allow it. And I hope my DM will be okay with it when my character gets that feature.
As for the warlock feeling the thrall's pain, I don't know. It could be "no", it could be "mere data", it could be "empathic pain" or it could be like the warlock himself being tortured. I would go with empathy, possibly subverted into sadistic pleasure.


Is the Thrall completely, 100% enslaved to the Warlock's wishes or is it more like a malicious genie kind of thing, where the Thrall must technically obey but is capable of subverting the Warlock's intentions?
IIRC create thrall basically just imposes the charmed condition which is pretty weak with the benefits of 'can't attack caster' and 'advantage on social interaction rolls'. Contrary to the name it doesn't really create a thrall just a friend with telepathy.
but yeah, the charmed condition (which is all that thrall officially does) has basically no effects whatsoever beyond being unable to attack you and you get advantage on social checks against them. doesn't make them obey you (unless you influence them using social skills), doesn't make them your friend, certainly doesn't make them want to risk a horrible painful death or torture on your behalf.Based on the illustration on page 290 of the PHB, I would treat the charmed condition, particularly the charmer's advantage on all social checks, as an emotional compulsion. The thrall is not looking for loopholes in an inner rulebook. If anything, the thrall's reason is trying to overcome an irrational desire to regard the warlock as a friend, a lover, a mentor or even as the outright master of their life. So, less "Whatever you say, jerk!" and more "Are you sure, Mister J?".

[EggKookoo]

The 1st level GOO feature Awakened Mind is worded in a manner that would suggest a one-way deal. The warlock can "telepathically speak to" creatures but it doesn't make the creatures able to answer in the same fashion.
I believe the 14th level GOO feature Create Thrall does not have that limitation. Here, the warlock can "communicate telepathically with" that creature. When the warlock talks in the creature's head, the creature can answer likewise.
Now, can the creature initiate the communication, do they have the warlock's mental phone number? It doesn't really say. Personally, I would allow it. And I hope my DM will be okay with it when my character gets that feature.
As for the warlock feeling the thrall's pain, I don't know. It could be "no", it could be "mere data", it could be "empathic pain" or it could be like the warlock himself being tortured. I would go with empathy, possibly subverted into sadistic pleasure.

This is why the question of the Thrall being able to initiate communication with the Warlock is relevant. If the Thrall is tortured, it might compulsively call out to the Warlock out of fear and pain. "Master, I'm trying to do what you want but they keep hurting me!"


Based on the illustration on page 290 of the PHB, I would treat the charmed condition, particularly the charmer's advantage on all social checks, as an emotional compulsion. The thrall is not looking for loopholes in an inner rulebook. If anything, the thrall's reason is trying to overcome an irrational desire to regard the warlock as a friend, a lover, a mentor or even as the outright master of their life. So, less "Whatever you say, jerk!" and more "Are you sure, Mister J?".

This is also how I see it. Like Sark and the MCP. Sark is aware that the MCP is controlling him and may even resent his lack of freedom from time to time, but overall he "enjoys the power [he's] been given" and would probably seek to return to the MCP's control if he was ever freed of it. Or at least he thinks he would while under the MPC's control. Once freed, he might find his outlook has changed.

This is how I see the One Ring influencing people, too. They like it on some level because it validates a lot of base desires that they normally keep contained. This is why it's easier for the Ring to control/corrupt powerful beings than it is for it to hook more humble people, like Frodo. It got to him eventually but he had to be brought low by the trials of the journey.

[Millstone85]

It could also echo the warlock's own relationship with their otherworldly patron.
I had mine go pack of the chain for added irony.

http://i.imgur.com/gJRUBVT.jpg

[SharkForce]

Based on the illustration on page 290 of the PHB, I would treat the charmed condition, particularly the charmer's advantage on all social checks, as an emotional compulsion. The thrall is not looking for loopholes in an inner rulebook. If anything, the thrall's reason is trying to overcome an irrational desire to regard the warlock as a friend, a lover, a mentor or even as the outright master of their life. So, less "Whatever you say, jerk!" and more "Are you sure, Mister J?".

that's entirely within your prerogative, but it isn't what the condition does. if WotC intended for it to include generally wanting to do what you ask, they should have put that in there. instead, they gave you a better chance of persuading someone to do something, provided you could theoretically have succeeded before, and an asbolute restriction on attacking you.

presumably the goal was to make it so that charm doesn't replace social skills, but the end result was that they mostly made charm worthless (and i'm baffled as to how they could possibly be unaware of that being the outcome, considering that basically every creature in the monster manual that charms things has an added stipulation that they can also give orders to the charmed individual which they must obey. which, by extension, means that anything without such language can't just give orders).

[EggKookoo]

that's entirely within your prerogative, but it isn't what the condition does. if WotC intended for it to include generally wanting to do what you ask, they should have put that in there. instead, they gave you a better chance of persuading someone to do something, provided you could theoretically have succeeded before, and an asbolute restriction on attacking you.

My issue is with the label "charmed." I say to my Warlock player that he has charmed the Thrall, the player reasonably assumed he has a kind of influence over the Thrall, and that the Thrall is in some sense enamored of his Warlock. That's the plain-English meaning, and how it's often played out in movies and such. If I say, "well, no, it just means you get a bonus when trying to persuade it and it can't directly attack you" it feels wrong. I get the RAW but I'm also trying to maximize RAF, too.

After all, "thrall" means slave. "I have a power called 'make slave' and I can't order it around? WTF?" Why isn't it just called "Superior Charm" or something? I think the feature wasn't really well thought out.


presumably the goal was to make it so that charm doesn't replace social skills, but the end result was that they mostly made charm worthless (and i'm baffled as to how they could possibly be unaware of that being the outcome, considering that basically every creature in the monster manual that charms things has an added stipulation that they can also give orders to the charmed individual which they must obey. which, by extension, means that anything without such language can't just give orders).

Yeah, that's the most probable interpretation.

However, I'm going to have to operate on the assumption that commands given to a charmed subject (by the charmer) are going to carry an enchanted compulsion that persists as long as the charmed state does. If I'm not charming you and I persuade you to assist me, you may change your mind at a later point. But if I'm charming you and I persuade you to assist me (gaining advantage in any related rolls due to the charmed state), in my interpretation, that means you are compelled to assist me as long as the charmed condition exists. Yes, that's a preference and I'm not trying to argue for it to be objectively correct in any way. Just how I'm going to run it at my table.

So if the Warlock uses Create Thrall on a creature and then successfully gives it a bunch of orders, the creature is compelled to carry out those orders until the charmed condition ends. Since CT has no set time limit and lets the Warlock maintain telepathic contact with the creature over virtually unlimited distance, this means the Warlock can continue to issue orders telepathically and the creature must carry them out.

Obviously there's no RAW for the Thrall to communicate back to the Warlock but it would be pretty limiting if the Warlock couldn't ask the Thrall a question telepathically and get a response. The communication may need to be initiated by the Warlock, but once the channel is opened it only makes sense that the Thrall can talk back through it. And there's no RAW that says dropping the telepathic link drops the charmed condition. The Warlock can re-establish it an hour later and the Thrall is still charmed. Again, how I have to interpret it. Others may go a different way, of course.

[SharkForce]

i'm definitely in favour of having create thrall (and other charm abilities) actually do something. but it also definitely isn't really how RAW works, and it does make some abilities which imo were designed with the fact that charm doesn't do much of anything a bit crazy.

for example, iirc swashbucklers can charm someone with a skill check (which will be nigh impossible to fail) at-will. the dragon sorcerer level 18 ability goes from "meh" to "i can probably win any fight unless the enemies are immune to charm by spending 3 SP". and so on.

[EggKookoo]

i'm definitely in favour of having create thrall (and other charm abilities) actually do something. but it also definitely isn't really how RAW works, and it does make some abilities which imo were designed with the fact that charm doesn't do much of anything a bit crazy.

For my purposes, I just need to assume that successful persuasion under the influence of charm has an additional "charmed" quality, which means you weren't simply bamboozled or confused into agreement, but that you were somehow fundamentally convinced that I'm right, and that conviction persists until the charmed condition itself ends, even against evidence to the contrary (people are good at rationalizing).

What does that break?

[Millstone85]

that's entirely within your prerogative, but it isn't what the condition does. if WotC intended for it to include generally wanting to do what you ask, they should have put that in there. instead, they gave you a better chance of persuading someone to do something, provided you could theoretically have succeeded before, and an asbolute restriction on attacking you.In my opinion, them "generally wanting to do what you ask" and me having "a better chance of persuading someone to do something" is the exact same concept. It is not just about the words "charmed" and "thrall", or the little hearts on the picture. The charmer having advantage on all social checks also suggests the fluff I described. Now, if you judge the effect so weak as to be meaningless, it is a different matter.

[ryan92084]

Who wants to start a petition to change the name to "Create mild trust"?

[EggKookoo]

Who wants to start a petition to change the name to "Create mild trust"?

"Wave your fingers charmingly."

[MaxWilson]

only to the extent that you can persuade someone with social skill checks. if there's absolutely no chance under the sun that someone would in any circumstance, say, agree to single-handedly take on an entire army, then your DC to persuade them is in a best-case scenario 35 as i recall (impossible task). precisely where "impossible task" begins and "nearly impossible" ends is up to your DM of course. but even "nearly impossible" is going to be unrealistic at best unless you use a few other things to increase your chances (glibness and a source of expertise, for example).

An impossible task has no DC. It's impossible. DCs are for tasks that are tricky but not impossible.

Wormtongue's influence on Theoden, getting him to exile Eomer, etc., show the limits of what you could reasonably expect social interactions (and therefore charmed creatures) to do.

Note that the Geas spell also produces a long-term charmed condition.

I'd recommend strengthening Create Thrall to something more like Domination, in order to be worthy of the name "Thrall." I don't think it was intended to be so weak.

[SharkForce]

In my opinion, them "generally wanting to do what you ask" and me having "a better chance of persuading someone to do something" is the exact same concept. It is not just about the words "charmed" and "thrall", or the little hearts on the picture. The charmer having advantage on all social checks also suggests the fluff I described. Now, if you judge the effect so weak as to be meaningless, it is a different matter.

the effect *is* so weak as to be meaningless. there are a variety of other better ways to get good results from social skill checks. many of them come without making the person hostile after the effect has worn off, and many of them have results that are not tied to the duration of an effect but can simply last indefinitely.

nobody gets mad at you for casting enhance attribute (charisma) on yourself, for example, and it works on everyone without needing any sort of saving throw. it's danged near impossible to prove that you just shifted a hex (wisdom or charisma) onto a target. friends at least doesn't cost any meaningful resources to use (and you can potentially shift the blame onto someone else). a helper likewise produces a similar result, again without making anyone inherently hostile.

charm is an incredibly weak condition. unless you're playing a solo game (at that point "incapable of attacking you" is a pretty solid ability).

[Millstone85]

Okay, I get it now. Since rolls with advantage primarily arise from favorable circumstances in the narrative, then spells and features that impose advantage on rolls would conversely be expected to encourage the roleplay of such favorable circumstances. However, by RAW, it is a one-way street. And so people will roleplay a charmed character exactly the same as before they were charmed, but with 2d20-drop-the-lowest and no attacks just because. Sure, people, WotC are the ones at fault here.

I kid, I kid. :smallbiggrin:

Thank you all for bringing my attention on this. It goes way beyond this class feature or even the charmed condition.

[MaxWilson]

Okay, I get it now. Since rolls with advantage primarily arise from favorable circumstances in the narrative, then spells and features that impose advantage on rolls would conversely be expected to encourage the roleplay of such favorable circumstances. However, by RAW, it is a one-way street. And so people will roleplay a charmed character exactly the same as before they were charmed, but with 2d20-drop-the-lowest and no attacks just because. Sure, people, WotC are the ones at fault here.

I kid, I kid. :smallbiggrin:

Thank you all for bringing my attention on this. It goes way beyond this class feature or even the charmed condition.

Yeah, the root cause is WotC's decision (unlike TSR) to define things primarily in terms of game jargon. This leads to issues such as Create Thrall ("charm" condition is specified without saying what's going on in the target's head to give you advantage), and it's the same root cause as the ridiculous Bardic Inspiration issue wherein the bard "spends a bonus action" to "inspire" his companions, without ever saying what he's really doing, which leads to a bard who is somehow able to spend his action, his bonus action, and his reaction simultaneously to cast a spell using a kazoo, give a pep talk to an ally, and hurl scathing insults at an enemy.

In short, the root cause is WotC habit of writing D&D rules like magic cards, where roleplaying considerations are treated as secondary and unimportant compared to game balance.

[EggKookoo]

Okay, I get it now. Since rolls with advantage primarily arise from favorable circumstances in the narrative, then spells and features that impose advantage on rolls would conversely be expected to encourage the roleplay of such favorable circumstances. However, by RAW, it is a one-way street. And so people will roleplay a charmed character exactly the same as before they were charmed, but with 2d20-drop-the-lowest and no attacks just because. Sure, people, WotC are the ones at fault here.

I kid, I kid. :smallbiggrin:

Thank you all for bringing my attention on this. It goes way beyond this class feature or even the charmed condition.

A lot of elements in the game have unanswered questions. One way to answer them is to extrapolate the thematic intent behind the element, and work out houserules.

[SharkForce]

Okay, I get it now. Since rolls with advantage primarily arise from favorable circumstances in the narrative, then spells and features that impose advantage on rolls would conversely be expected to encourage the roleplay of such favorable circumstances. However, by RAW, it is a one-way street. And so people will roleplay a charmed character exactly the same as before they were charmed, but with 2d20-drop-the-lowest and no attacks just because. Sure, people, WotC are the ones at fault here.

I kid, I kid. :smallbiggrin:

Thank you all for bringing my attention on this. It goes way beyond this class feature or even the charmed condition.

the charmed condition tells you what it does. it certainly doesn't make you inherently favourably disposed towards the caster of, say, a geas spell, for example. based on the mechanical impact of the condition, we are left to deduce how it is to be roleplayed, and nothing about it indicates that (for example) you stop being enemies with the charmer's allies, or that you are even friendly (although effects that cause the charmed condition also sometimes include other specifications to that effect).

just as the monsters have special rules that their charmed minions will obey orders, we would expect that same kind of language if there was any sort of compulsion behind the create thrall ability, rather than just an enhanced ability to persuade. and create thrall certainly doesn't implicitly or explicitly denote friendship. merely that you have enhanced influence over the individual in terms of probability of succeeding at things you could already do (in contrast to something like pass without trace which lets you do things far beyond your inherent capacity).

[Millstone85]

Yeah, the root cause is WotC's decision (unlike TSR) to define things primarily in terms of game jargon. This leads to issues such as Create Thrall ("charm" condition is specified without saying what's going on in the target's head to give you advantage)But what if we forget for a moment that it is game jargon and remember that it is also plain English? This happens...


the charmed condition tells you what it does.Yes indeed, it tells you that the charmed will not attack or otherwise try to harm the charmer and that the charmer is advantaged in any social interaction with the charmed. It sounds pretty clear to me what it is going on in that head.


A lot of elements in the game have unanswered questions. One way to answer them is to extrapolate the thematic intent behind the element, and work out houserules.I want to think better of the handbook but I guess this is what it boils down to.

[EggKookoo]

Yes indeed, it tells you that the charmed will not attack or otherwise try to harm the charmer and that the charmer is advantaged in any social interaction with the charmed. It sounds pretty clear to me what it is going on in that head.

So where's he Thrall? A thrall is a slave.

Here's a power: Super Jump. It allows you +1 on Dex saves.

If you give me a power called Create Thrall, I want to, you know, be able to create a thrall. A slave. Someone I can command and control.

[MaxWilson]

If you give me a power called Create Thrall, I want to, you know, be able to create a thrall. A slave. Someone I can command and control.

Which is precisely why the first thing a potential Cthulock should do is "ask your DM how they'd rule on Create Thrall," and the DM (IMO) should make it something more like Domination. It seems clear to me that the Create Thrall ability was written by someone who wasn't thinking about the new 5E definition of "charmed", and had something more like the AD&D Charm Person/Monster definition in mind.

[Millstone85]

So where's he Thrall? A thrall is a slave.I was trying to show that the charm condition is not that weak or badly described if you cut the PHB some slack. Now, does the charm condition plus a telepathic link make a thrall? Okay no, I admit, a thrall should go even beyond a slave and here I can at most picture a very abusive relationship.


Which is precisely why the first thing a potential Cthulock should do is "ask your DM how they'd rule on Create Thrall," and the DM (IMO) should make it something more like Domination. It seems clear to me that the Create Thrall ability was written by someone who wasn't thinking about the new 5E definition of "charmed", and had something more like the AD&D Charm Person/Monster definition in mind.Will do. Also, eh, "Cthulock". ^^

[EggKookoo]

It seems clear to me that the Create Thrall ability was written by someone who wasn't thinking about the new 5E definition of "charmed", and had something more like the AD&D Charm Person/Monster definition in mind.

I was thinking something along the same lines. It feels like the concept for the feature changed partway through development, and it has vestiges of its original intent.

Or, it's not so much that Create Thrall changed but that they tacked on "charmed" as its prime effect, more or less like you said.


I was trying to show that the charm condition is not that weak or badly described if you cut the PHB some slack. Now, does the charm condition plus a telepathic link make a thrall? Okay no, I admit, a thrall should go even beyond a slave and here I can at most picture a very abusive relationship.

Will do. Also, eh, "Cthulock". ^^

For me, Create Thrall works fine if I houserule the following:

If you successfully persuade a creature that you also have charmed, the persuasion is unreasonably strong (meaning the creature is persuaded even against reason to the contrary). The creature doesn't merely accept your persuasion but believes it with conviction. This effect lasts until the charmed condition ends.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread. I'm curious if anyone can see this breaking anything.

Edit: Oh, another houserule is that if you fail a persuasion check against a creature that you have charmed, you may try again without penalty. The charmed creature wants to be persuaded. The failure is because it thinks it didn't understand you properly.

[MaxWilson]

presumably the goal was to make it so that charm doesn't replace social skills, but the end result was that they mostly made charm worthless (and i'm baffled as to how they could possibly be unaware of that being the outcome, considering that basically every creature in the monster manual that charms things has an added stipulation that they can also give orders to the charmed individual which they must obey. which, by extension, means that anything without such language can't just give orders).

Evidence for them not thinking through the implications:

It's not just charmed, they use "advantage" as a lazy substitute for all kinds of rules. Consider animals with keen senses. WotC will say, "Bears have advantage on Perception checks made with the sense of smell," and imagine that they just informed you that bears have a sense of smell 7 times better than bloodhounds (which they do) and that bears should be able to smell lots of things outside hearing or even normal visual range. If you happen to know something about bear noses you'll be able to "extrapolate the thematic intent behind the [rule]" as I believe Millstone put it, but you'd never get that from the rule text.

Charmed might be the same way.

[Millstone85]

If you happen to know something about bear noses you'll be able to "extrapolate the thematic intent behind the [rule]" as I believe Millstone put it, but you'd never get that from the rule text.Actually, those were ChrisBasken's words. Not that I disagree.


For me, Create Thrall works fine if I houserule the following:

If you successfully persuade a creature that you also have charmed, the persuasion is unreasonably strong (meaning the creature is persuaded even against reason to the contrary). The creature doesn't merely accept your persuasion but believes it with conviction. This effect lasts until the charmed condition ends.I am not sure if I can give you meaningful feedback here. How do you normally rule if a persuasion check goes "Oh, okay, let's do that, I guess?" or "Wow dude, you are so right about this!".

[EggKookoo]

Actually, those were ChrisBasken's words. Not that I disagree.

Just Chris. I would have used that but it was taken, and I never really got into giving myself character/theme names on forums (I always lose track of who I am ;-) ).


I am not sure if I can give you meaningful feedback here. How do you normally rule if a persuasion check goes "Oh, okay, let's do that, I guess?" or "Wow dude, you are so right about this!".

Let's see if I can streamline it. I successfully persuade you. That persuasion lasts until some other factor makes you re-think the situation, like you notice a clue or a friend points out a contradiction, or you just plain have another moment to think about it. You don't particularly want to believe what I'm telling you, but it seems logical in the moment. "Oh, okay" vs. "wow dude!" is really mostly roleplaying but it might also relate to how well I rolled on my persuasion check.

If I charm you first, then it's basically the same except that it's effectively impossible for you to doubt what I persuaded you of. If a clue pops up or a friend points out a contradiction or whatever, you'll rationalize it. You want to be persuaded by me because of the charm effect. Of course, if something ends the charmed state, then you revert to normal with regard to persuasion.

In addition, if I fail to persuade you, normally I can't try again (or maybe I can with a penalty) because you're more on guard. But if I fail to persuade you and you're charmed, then the failure happened (in your mind) because you didn't "get" what I was saying and are willing to give me another chance. Again, you want to be persuaded because I'm so charming.

Doing this allows Create Thrall to work the way I want. You create your Thrall, then persuade it of all kinds of things, repeating failures, until you've created a whole series of beliefs or ideas in its head that support the notion that it's beholden to you, or that you're looking out for its bests interests, or whatever. As long as you maintain the charmed condition (no time limit for CT), your Thrall is your willing slave. Adding in unlimited-range telepathy means you can even keep this active at a distance. Nothing in the CT description says you need to maintain concentration, so you can even sleep and your Thrall remains charmed the whole time.

Not saying this is how it is. This is just how I'm interpreting it at my table.

[MaxWilson]

Let's see if I can streamline it. I successfully persuade you. That persuasion lasts until some other factor makes you re-think the situation, like you notice a clue or a friend points out a contradiction, or you just plain have another moment to think about it. You don't particularly want to believe what I'm telling you, but it seems logical in the moment. "Oh, okay" vs. "wow dude!" is really mostly roleplaying but it might also relate to how well I rolled on my persuasion check.

See, this is the opposite of how I run persuasion. The way I run it, the first question is, "Is persuasion possible here?" I.e. is it actually in my best interest, from my own point of view, to do what you're asking me to do? Or does it at least cost me nothing at all? If so, then persuasion is possible, and the better you are at persuasion, the more likely it is that I will actually do the thing you're trying to get me to do (sign that trade treaty!) or believe the true thing you want me to believe (you really didn't kill that goblin, honest).

Persuasion is like a catalyst, getting you from state A to state B, but it only lowers the energy requires to make the transition--it doesn't make an impossible reaction possible.

If you want to persuade me to do something against my best interests, you have to deceive me and then persuade me to act on that deception. I think D&D is more fun when non-combat activities are given more emphasis, so I wouldn't object to a player trying to leverage the Charmed condition and/or Enhance Ability (Charisma) + Deception Expertise + Persuasion Expertise into "the enemy is attacking the city, we've been sent to protect you, you need to come with us right now", but it's not really clear to me how your ruling on Create Thrall would apply in my universe. Would the thrall be resistant to realizing that the enemy never really attacked?

[EggKookoo]

Persuasion is like a catalyst, getting you from state A to state B, but it only lowers the energy requires to make the transition--it doesn't make an impossible reaction possible.

Oh, I agree with that. You can't persuade someone that day is night, regardless of the roll. And being charmed won't help that. Being charmed in and of itself doesn't make your target believe you. It's the persuasion that does that. Being charmed just changes the nature of that belief (IMO), but persuasion still has to follow rules.

Keep in mind that being charmed confers benefits to any kind of social interaction (in the rules in the form of advantage, but thematically however you'd like it to fit). This means intimidation, deception, performance, etc. A charmed target is more likely to believe your lie, but deception can't work if what you're saying is plainly and demonstrably false.


If you want to persuade me to do something against my best interests, you have to deceive me and then persuade me to act on that deception.

Absolutely.


I think D&D is more fun when non-combat activities are given more emphasis, so I wouldn't object to a player trying to leverage the Charmed condition and/or Enhance Ability (Charisma) + Deception Expertise + Persuasion Expertise into "the enemy is attacking the city, we've been sent to protect you, you need to come with us right now", but it's not really clear to me how your ruling on Create Thrall would apply in my universe. Would the thrall be resistant to realizing that the enemy never really attacked?

No, you'd have to be more subtle, like undermining the Thrall's understanding of why they're attacking or what you're really there to do, or maybe even just offering the Thrall a deal to change loyalties -- a deal that you may have no ability to honor but the charmed Thrall will believe anyway as long as you actually make your persuasion or deception roll.

So in your case, you just need to persuade/deceive the Thrall into accepting the attack is happening even if he's not seeing evidence of it (no noise, no panicking, whatever). If your explanation is creative and internally logical -- "It's a sneak attack, whatever-whatever-Wizard scried them just outside the gates. They're just about to unleash their siege weapons. WE HAVE NO TIME!" -- then the charmed creature is likely to believe you. A non-charmed creature might want to do the due diligence of checking with the captain of the guard or go take a look at the city walls or something, but a charmed creature is already under your influence and wants to believe you, and will if what you say seems to even remotely make sense. Again, this is my interpretation.

If you add in the ability to re-attempt persuasion/deception to a charmed creature, you could wear away its resistance, as well as pile on layers of deception to reinforce the overall mental picture you're trying to get it to adopt. In most cases, whatever's causing the charmed effect has limits -- either duration or the creature is allowed to make saves to break free. But CT has no such limits, so you can keep at it and the creature is locked into it.

At my table, I certainly wouldn't let my players just say "we charm the dude and get him to come with us." I'd make them work for it in the sense that they'd have to build out a chain of "logic" that would get the guy going. I might even forego rolls if what they come up with is solid enough. Assuming CT is in play, of course.

Just seems more fun to look at it like that for me, and it makes CT actually useful and also live up to its name.

[MaxWilson]

Would you apply your rules on Charm to all cases of long-term Charmed creatures (e.g. Geas IX can permanently charm) or treat Create Thrall as something special?

[EggKookoo]

Would you apply your rules on Charm to all cases of long-term Charmed creatures (e.g. Geas IX can permanently charm) or treat Create Thrall as something special?

Hm, interesting question. That's the kind of thing I was wondering about. What would break?

I quickly looked up Geas IX (I'm at work, shh), but I don't see anything that references it imposing the charmed condition. I'm sure it does, just couldn't find it with a two-minute google.

Anyway, assuming Geas does impose charm, I'd say sure, it has the same effect. Geas doesn't involve real-time telepathy, so it's not really the same as Create Thrall. You'd only be subject to the charm effect when in the presence of your "master," so he could mess with your head only until you left him. The messing he put in your head would stay (unless remove curse is used on you?) but he can't add any more. Of course you're still under the effects of the Geas itself (damage per day, etc.).

Does that overpower Geas? It might.

However, if it messes with too many other things, I guess I would have to limit it to just CT. That would be less elegant but it's not the end of the world. My goal isn't to "fix" charmed so much as make CT cool.

[MaxWilson]

Here's a PHB quote for reference.


...It must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be charmed by you for the duration. While the creature it charmed by you, it takes 5d10 psychic damage each time it acts in a manner directly counter to your instructions, but no more than once per day...

[EggKookoo]

Here's a PHB quote for reference.

Got it.

Yeah, I'd say I'd keep it, and fix it if it broke something. Thematically, there's nothing wrong with running Geas that way, IMO. The pain compulsion makes it comparable to Create Thrall in that it provides an ongoing incentive for the slave to obey the master, but it has a different feel.

Full disclosure, I've never run a D&D game where Geas has been used. It's possible it's been used in games I've played, I don't recall.

[MaxWilson]

Got it.

Yeah, I'd say I'd keep it, and fix it if it broke something. Thematically, there's nothing wrong with running Geas that way, IMO. The pain compulsion makes it comparable to Create Thrall in that it provides an ongoing incentive for the slave to obey the master, but it has a different feel.

Full disclosure, I've never run a D&D game where Geas has been used. It's possible it's been used in games I've played, I don't recall.

Geas in 5E is potentially incredibly powerful. It's got no spell component cost and it casts relatively quickly (1 minute), using a spell slot that you can recharge using Arcane Recovery and/or spell points (i.e. it's not one of the special restricted "over 5th level" slots). It doesn't even require Somatic components and it's got a 60 foot range, so if you're tied to a torture device by Darth Tyrannus, who leaves you there for a minute with just a Stormtrooper to watch you, you can totally (potentially) Geas him to "help me escape" instead of just "untie me and leave your weapon behind."

Moreover, Bounded Accuracy makes minions powerful, so especially with the expansive view of what "Charmed" means, you can wipe out a Hobgoblin squad (pulling your punches so as not to kill them), and then while they are unconscious you can Geas them all to become your bodyguards, and then use Inspiring Leader to give them all a bunch of temp HP so they can survive Fireballs and Frost Giant boulders and whatnot. A Necromancer could even create Wights with Create Undead, and then Geas them instead of re-casting the spell every day (wights, unlike ghouls, are not immune to being charmed, only to exhaustion and being poisoned) and therefore rapidly build up a whole platoon of super-powered wights (double damage because the Necromancer's Undead Thralls ability adds +6 damage to each attack; more HP). If you've ever seen a Necromancer's dozen skeletons tear an enemy to shreds, just wait till you see what 50 wights each firing longbows twice per turn for d8+8 points of damage do, even before they each create a dozen zombies.

Not that that doesn't sound like fun, mind you. I'm not even saying that I would stop it. But Geas is a very powerful spell in 5E due to Bounded Accuracy, especially for something which has no material component cost.

[Millstone85]

Yeah, I got nothing. Sorry I couldn't actually contribute to this discussion on game balance. :smallfrown:

Question: How would you present the Create Thrall feature, or the charmed condition in general, to a DM who almost never uses the dice during social encounters? If he suddenly starts asking for rolls because of the advantage, I can see the whole thing becoming counterproductive. I think I should encourage the keep-it-RP approach, but with a few "milestones" such as:
* a major wisdom (insight) success to discover what makes them tick.
* a major charisma (deception or performance) success to make them doubt themselves and their loyalties.
* a major charisma (intimidation or persuasion) success to threaten or seduce them into submission.

Once again playing on an abusive relationship interpretation. This might be similar to Chris' idea about the "thrall" being reluctant to accept later evidences that they are being made a fool of.

[Zalabim]

A few things. Geas'd Wights are still a huge liability, since they don't have to obey the caster, only the caster is safe from them, and the punishment for disobedience won't stop them, especially if they're necro-wizard super-wights. Don't try this in polite company.

If the Charmed, or Create Thrall, condition makes it so you can retry failures without penalty, then there's no longer a point in rolling for most purposes. It's either possible to convince them, and you do, or it is not possible to convince them and you don't. It's otherwise a matter of time if you need to convince them of something in a hurry.

Weak at it is, it almost makes sense to have the Thrall be a party member, or npc ally, so you get the benefits of long-distance telepathy and assurances that they won't turn on you specifically. Of course I can vouch for the CE Drow Rogue. I'd trust him with my life. Doesn't totally stop them from inactively screwing you over. I'm more picturing a case where the weak-willed barbarian gets Dominated and ordered to attack the warlock and he just can't.

[EggKookoo]

Question: How would you present the Create Thrall feature, or the charmed condition in general, to a DM who almost never uses the dice during social encounters? If he suddenly starts asking for rolls because of the advantage, I can see the whole thing becoming counterproductive.


If the Charmed, or Create Thrall, condition makes it so you can retry failures without penalty, then there's no longer a point in rolling for most purposes. It's either possible to convince them, and you do, or it is not possible to convince them and you don't. It's otherwise a matter of time if you need to convince them of something in a hurry.

I quoted these two because they relate to the same point. If you can retry failures, what's the point of the advantage. Am I interpreting that right?

I subscribe to the idea that you only roll if failure is interesting. If the Warlock is walking through the woods with the party on a four-hour hike, and needs to persuade the Thrall of something (via telepathy or the Thrall is with the party), I don't ask for a roll. I just look at the nature of what he's trying to persuade the Thrall of and determine if it's one of those things that's impossible despite the Thrall wanting to believe it (the whole "day is night" thing). If not, I rule the Thrall is convinced.

However, if I'm keeping track of rounds, usually for combat but maybe also in situations when exact timing matters (trapped in a room that's filling with water and will be full in three rounds), I call for rolls on most things. In that case, advantage has value.

Does that make sense?

[MaxWilson]

A few things. Geas'd Wights are still a huge liability, since they don't have to obey the caster, only the caster is safe from them, and the punishment for disobedience won't stop them, especially if they're necro-wizard super-wights. Don't try this in polite company.

If the Charmed, or Create Thrall, condition makes it so you can retry failures without penalty, then there's no longer a point in rolling for most purposes. It's either possible to convince them, and you do, or it is not possible to convince them and you don't. It's otherwise a matter of time if you need to convince them of something in a hurry.

Geased Wights who can be automatically persuaded of anything and are resistant to changing their minds would not be a huge liability. In the context of "charmed" as something with fluff attached and not just advantage on die rolls, having a whole bunch of charmed wights would in fact be awesome... for the right kind of (bad) guy anyway.

"I'm the king of the superwights!"

[Ashaman]

Under the Charm Person spell, it clearly says "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance." To me, that sets the tone for everything that follows.
You can pretty easily convince a friendly acquaintance to buy you a beer. It's much harder to convince a friendly acquaintance to buy you a Mercedes. And convincing him to cut his own throat just isn't going to work. 'Advantage on social skills' is supposed to be the mechanical translation of that effect. But the effect comes first, then the roll.

So if you create a Thrall underling working for a BBEG, it seems like he would consider you a good buddy, but not be willing to throw away his life to help you. His loyalty would be split between his buddy and his boss. He might become a poor employee where he can get away with it, but he's still got a job and an employer who might incinerate him. Or, if you have a really good persuasion interaction, you might convince him to change his loyalty, and start working against the BBEG from the inside. But that's going to take some convincing and fast talking, you can't rely on a spell to do all the work.

I think the idea is to convert an impossible role-play challenge into a plausible one, but still requiring a bit of role-play and a good die roll.

[MaxWilson]

Under the Charm Person spell, it clearly says "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance." To me, that sets the tone for everything that follows.
You can pretty easily convince a friendly acquaintance to buy you a beer. It's much harder to convince a friendly acquaintance to buy you a Mercedes. And convincing him to cut his own throat just isn't going to work. 'Advantage on social skills' is supposed to be the mechanical translation of that effect. But the effect comes first, then the roll.

So if you create a Thrall underling working for a BBEG, it seems like he would consider you a good buddy, but not be willing to throw away his life to help you. His loyalty would be split between his buddy and his boss. He might become a poor employee where he can get away with it, but he's still got a job and an employer who might incinerate him. Or, if you have a really good persuasion interaction, you might convince him to change his loyalty, and start working against the BBEG from the inside. But that's going to take some convincing and fast talking, you can't rely on a spell to do all the work.

I think the idea is to convert an impossible role-play challenge into a plausible one, but still requiring a bit of role-play and a good die roll.

But... you're talking about the Charm Person spell, not the Charmed condition. By RAW at least, the Charmed condition is weaker.

Hypnotic Pattern has the "charmed" condition and a rider which incapacitates you while charmed. Charm Person has the "charmed" condition and a rider which makes you regard the other person as a friendly acquaintance while charmed. Create Thrall (RAW version) has the "charmed" condition and a rider which... allows you to speak telepathically with it?!?

In other words, you can't use the Charm Person spell text as a way of interpreting the Charmed condition. If you want to change it, it has to be through DM fiat and not rules-lawyering based on spell descriptions.

[EggKookoo]

Create Thrall (RAW version) has the "charmed" condition and a rider which... allows you to speak telepathically with it?!?

Which doesn't really do anything close to "creating a thrall," does it? I think the point of this conversation is that the feature is at best mislabeled, and possibly broken.

[Millstone85]

snipBut... you're talking about the Charm Person spell, not the Charmed condition. By RAW at least, the Charmed condition is weaker.Yes, the Charm Person spell does make it unambiguous that the charmed creature becomes friendly, something that is not explicitly stated in the charmed condition itself. But I would note that the spell also puts a major limitation on the charmed condition: it ends if you do anything harmful to the creature. By itself, the charmed condition prevents the creature from attacking or otherwise harming you but it says nothing about returning the courtesy.

I suppose that a thrall could be further formatted to a warlock's will by way of successful deception and persuasion checks... or by intimidation checks with the threat or use of violence against a victim who can never retaliate. The class has a torture feature and that makes me way happier than it should.


I quoted these two because they relate to the same point. If you can retry failures, what's the point of the advantage. Am I interpreting that right?

I subscribe to the idea that you only roll if failure is interesting.My question was more about how to treat advantage on all social interactions when social interactions never involve the d20. I think my DM considers social encounters to be moments of pure roleplay. The players will not succeed because of a roll and they will certainly not fail because of one. But a feature that forces advantage might push the DM to use die rolls. I fear a paradoxical situation where having advantage would make my chances worse instead of better.

[EggKookoo]

Yes, the Charm Person spell does make it unambiguous that the charmed creature becomes friendly, something that is not explicitly stated in the charmed condition itself. But I would note that the spell also puts a major limitation on the charmed condition: it ends if you do anything harmful to the creature. By itself, the charmed condition prevents the creature from attacking or otherwise harming you but it says nothing about returning the courtesy.

I think Max's point is that those are features of the Charm Person spell itself, not the charmed condition. Since CT imposes the charmed condition, and does not actually apply Charm Person as a spell, those additional rider characteristics of Charm Person would not apply. I see his point and agree that that's how it's meant to be interpreted (or at least that it's reasonable to assume that's how it's meant to be interpreted without getting dogmatic about it), I find that application lacking for Create Thrall.

[Millstone85]

That is also how I understood Max's point. I was just saying that not all the features of Charm Person enhance the charmed condition. The spell has at least one negative rider. And Create Thrall not having that downside might be more important than it not having the good stuff.

[EggKookoo]

That is also how I understood Max's point. I was just saying that not all the features of Charm Person enhance the charmed condition. The spell has at least one negative rider. And Create Thrall not having that downside might be more important than it not having the good stuff.

Ok, I see. But that's why I thought it should really be called "Improved Charm" or something that actually describes its effects. "Create Thrall" suggest something altogether different.

[Mith]

Would it be too much to rework Create Thrall to be that if one arranges to have the time, one can effectively Dominate an individual through brainwashing, with a minimal time of 1 hour? So if the PCs plan ahead, they can create a true thrall, but for quick work, one will end up with a less trustworthy servant.

[MaxWilson]

I think Max's point is that those are features of the Charm Person spell itself, not the charmed condition. Since CT imposes the charmed condition, and does not actually apply Charm Person as a spell, those additional rider characteristics of Charm Person would not apply. I see his point and agree that that's how it's meant to be interpreted (or at least that it's reasonable to assume that's how it's meant to be interpreted without getting dogmatic about it), I find that application lacking for Create Thrall.

You understand me perfectly. And I agree that Create Thrall needs some DM attention.


Would it be too much to rework Create Thrall to be that if one arranges to have the time, one can effectively Dominate an individual through brainwashing, with a minimal time of 1 hour? So if the PCs plan ahead, they can create a true thrall, but for quick work, one will end up with a less trustworthy servant.

If my player asked me for that, I'd say, "Sure, sounds fine to me."

[Tanarii]

My question was more about how to treat advantage on all social interactions when social interactions never involve the d20. I think my DM considers social encounters to be moments of pure roleplay. The players will not succeed because of a roll and they will certainly not fail because of one. But a feature that forces advantage might push the DM to use die rolls. I fear a paradoxical situation where having advantage would make my chances worse instead of better.In that case, you probably need to have a general discussion with your DM about the value in taking any social skill Proficiency at all.

And possibly the role of DM Adjudication of actions, and what 'Role-play' even means. Although going there might just start a silly fight, so tread lightly. ;)

[Millstone85]

In that case, you probably need to have a general discussion with your DM about the value in taking any social skill Proficiency at all.

And possibly the role of DM Adjudication of actions, and what 'Role-play' even means. Although going there might just start a silly fight, so tread lightly. ;)I could see the silly fight start at the skill proficiency question, because it wouldn't be the first time I asked why he even bought all these books. Perhaps that's the rule lawyer in me but it rarely feels like we are even using them as a guideline. However, I still like to read these books and discuss them here.

And besides, if we were playing by my own made-up rules, we would be using cards, not dice. I love the feeling of being dealt resources, possibly negative ones too, and trying to make the best out of it. I hate deciding on an action only to see it fail because a die says so. Or succeed, for that matter, it is not satisfying either.

But I am not worried about my character. She used to be a 4e warlock with constitution as her spell casting ability. The only skill under constitution was endurance and that's another thing I never got to use, except that one time to see if she got drunk at a completely safe banquet. So if as a 5e warlock with charisma casting she never uses charisma skills, that will be nothing new.

Also yeah, as a matter of fact, I will not take any social skill proficiency.