-
I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Problem: Charm/ hypnotism/ mesmerism spells don’t work well in D&D, either 3X or 5th edition. They’re tricky to balance in general, because they either become “I win” buttons, or else get nerfed into oblivion to stop them from trivializing the entire game and campaign.
Context: E6 with common magic. Every decent sized village has a spellcaster or two. But magic mart doesn't take effect for reasons.
Spoiler: ’E6 design philosophy’
Show
I like E6 as a design space, because it lets me rethink magical (and other) power levels. In a challenging environment, figure 50% of the adult population is 1st level, 37.5% 2nd level, 10% 3rd level and the rest 4-6+.
So 0th and 1st level spells are fairly commonplace magics—if you can’t do something as impressive as turning yourself into a tree or cure wounds or magic missile or charm animals, you shouldn’t be wearing a pointy hat.
2nd level spells mark the caster as being a cut above—things not just any conjuror of cheap tricks can do.
3rd level spells are the apex of daily magic—flight, fireballs, stone shaping, curing diseases, breaking curses. Casting 3rd level spells is the province of named NPCs.
Beyond that you need to invest time and resources into rituals and incantations and the like—and a lot of towns and cities and guilds have to do that just to cure diseases and break curses because they don’t have an apex level spellcaster handy.
This goes along with the essay from The Alexandrian about 3rd edition skills at the limits of real-world human potential around 3rd-4th-5th level, which itself references the “Gandalf Was a 5th Level Wizard” essay
So I know I want Svengalis and Rasputins and Mesmeros available as campaign villains, using magic to bend minds, using Jedi Mind Tricks in the short term and going full swirly-eyed Jafar on their network of supporters and thralls. I like Joseph Manola’s BX Mesmerist class, http://udan-adan.blogspot.com/2016/0...mesmerist.html as a concept.
Some things that Mesmero should be able to do, or could be able to do, that I don’t see existing spells that model very well:
1. Jedi Mind trick. If the target fails the save, they believe whatever nonsense you tell them, for a short period of time. This overlaps and interacts with the Bluff skill. Can also interact with the Diplomacy skill because you almost always want them to DO something for you. (Depending on how we write this, the belief could persist beyond the spell description—he just now believes X to be true until convinced otherwise). At first blush, seems like a 1st level effect. Game balance? If you keep doing it, people WILL kick your ass for being a prat.
2. Stage hypnotism. Target fails its save, you can order it to do things. Stand still, walk away, open a door, answer a question, cluck like a chicken, give you her weapon. (Limitation—target is operating at limited capacity, so can’t do anything that requires much skill or ability. Also requires concentration—in the fiction, the mesmerist is always fully focused on controlling the target.)
3. Post-hypnotic suggestions. This fits the usual Mesmero package, but I don’t know that it’s very fantasy adventure RPG.
4. Man of Destiny. Convince others that you are something special, that you are almost always right, possessed of divine insight or whatever. Cult leader type stuff, Ayn Rand, Steve Jobs, Muad’Dib, desert prophets, Savonarola. Not sure this fits within the scope of a 3rd level spell though. Adding 3 followers a day, every day without limits has....unlimited potential.
Tag for later edit: Existing spells that are close, and comparisons
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
My first thought would be to have multiple saving throws, with each failed saving throw being worse for the subject(s) of the spell. Sort of the way some people who get jedi mind tricked break out of it after a moment, and others don't.
I've heard of a similar system for petrification. I want to say it was recomended as an addition from 4e? In that case, one failed saving throw results in you having a weaker effect put on you (such as being slowed) and you have to fail more saving throws before petrification fully sets in. Which helps stop petrification from being an automatically character ending ability.
For charm effect, I figure you should have one saving throw to be impacted by the spell in the first place. Weaker spells then have the subject realize what happened afterward, while stronger spells require an additional saving throw at the end of the effect; failing that saving throw means the subject of the spell doesn't realize they were charmed. And possibly a third one at the end of the next long rest, if you want another level to balance such spells.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
I would have the spell give you a huge bonus on intimidate and diplomacy checks against a target, if you ever fail a check they have broken free and you lose the bonus.
So it keeps the player active and target reactive compared to a save, and is less drastically binary.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Vaguely Related Existing Spells
Charm Person. 1st level. Sets target’s attitude to Friendly. Which means what exactly—see the Diplomancer arguments, threads.
Duration 1 hour/ level--way longer than a combat encounter, but not long enough for permanent influence games. A lot of ambiguity in what the spell can do, which is why in most of the games I'm in it gets pushed to the side.
Command. 1st level. One target, one very simple (one word) action. Does what it says on the tin.
Hold Person. 2nd level. Paralyzes subject. (Does not require further action by caster).
Tasha's Hideous Laughter. 2nd level. Subject is prone, takes no actions for 1 round/CL.
Suggestion. 3rd level. Causes target to do something that seems like a reasonable thing to do. 1 hour/level.
Lesser Geas. 4th level. Will save or carry out action until complete or for 1 day/level.
Glibness. 3nd level Bard. +30 to Bluff checks for 10 minutes/level.
Dominate Person. 5th level. Duration 1 day/level. Control the actions of the subject. Caster can use subject as long-range limited sensing organ. "Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out."
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
I would have the spell give you a huge bonus on intimidate and diplomacy checks against a target, if you ever fail a check they have broken free and you lose the bonus.
So it keeps the player active and target reactive compared to a save, and is less drastically binary.
This was my line of thinking too, but I'd also like to incorporate the other players into the effect. A charm spell should "soften up" a creature for your more Diplomatic ally to work on.
Charm Person
Enchantment (Charm)[Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: One hour/level
Saving Throw: Willnegates
Spell Resistance: Yes
"Any friend of yours is a friend of mine!"
This charm makes a humanoid creature more likely to trust you and your allies. You gain a +10 enhancement bonus on Diplomacy checks made to influence that creature's attitude, and it always counts as "wanting to believe you" during Bluff checks (-5 penalty to the creature's Sense Motive check). Anyone you introduce to the target as a friend or ally gains these benefits against the target, as well.
If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your intentions, or else be good at pantomiming.
The enhancement bonus on Diplomacy checks increases to +20 at caster level 5th, and to +30 (the maximum) at caster level 9th.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rferries
This was my line of thinking too, but I'd also like to incorporate the other players into the effect. A charm spell should "soften up" a creature for your more Diplomatic ally to work on.
I agree with this. But I'm still thinking that we break down the spells into "Believe False Fact", "Do a Thing" and "Caster is Awesome and Terrible and Wonderful and Majestic" in the old, sorta-biblical meanings of those words.
I'm pretty sure I want to replace the basic Enchantment/Charm spells in this field with ones that do what they say on the tin.
Second point: Do we want a first level spell that lets the Bard trivialize everything with Diplomancy? If you give the Bard a +10 to his Diplomacy checks, for 1 hour per caster level, you pretty much have Kilgrave the Purple Man trashing the campaign world.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sandmote
My first thought would be to have multiple saving throws, with each failed saving throw being worse for the subject(s) of the spell. Sort of the way some people who get jedi mind tricked break out of it after a moment, and others don't.
I did something like this to replace the sleep spell with deeper daze--two saving throws, one failure is a one-round daze, two failures the target is dazed for one minute per caster level. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...7&postcount=10
Quote:
For charm effect, I figure you should have one saving throw to be impacted by the spell in the first place. Weaker spells then have the subject realize what happened afterward, while stronger spells require an additional saving throw at the end of the effect; failing that saving throw means the subject of the spell doesn't realize they were charmed. And possibly a third one at the end of the next long rest, if you want another level to balance such spells.
Well, I'm personally trying to work this in an E6 context, so we only have to worry about "Low" "Midlevel" and High Level".
And I think we SHOULD separate into categories.
"Jedi Mind Trick" causes the target to believe something.
"Suggestion/Command/Compulsion" type spells cause the target to do something specific.
"Devotion" causes the target to devote their life to the caster, and might be too much for an E6 spell. (Maybe a spell that creates a potion or charm-object or something).
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
I don't particularly mind a "coup-de-grace win-button," as long as it's not the main effect you were going for (ie. basically a "crit" for the spell). But yeah, those do a good job of not being save or suck spells.
At the very least, I'm glad to hear I'm not so crazy as to suggest something no one's thought of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
Well, I'm personally trying to work this in an E6 context, so we only have to worry about "Low" "Midlevel" and High Level".
I'll repeat my suggestion within that specific format then:
When a low level effect ends, the target realizes they were charmed
Midlevel effects give the target a second saving throw when the effect ends. On a failed save, the target fails to realize they were charmed.
For high level effects, say they don't know. Or something similar, but harder to abuse (if necessary).
Basically, early spells are decidedly weaker, and the stronger spells aren't always going to turn out perfectly. So you can write one Least Charm Person as a low level spell where the subject automatically knows, Lesser charm person that requires an additional saving throw to decide whether or not the target knows, and a Greater Charm person where they outright don't know. This is based on the method for nerfing Charm Person in 5e, which is what I'm suggesting for low level spells.
So low level and short term "Jedi Mind Trick"/(see below) effects still end up markedly weaker. Possibly also Suggestion/Command/Compulsion, depending on how you write them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
And I think we SHOULD separate into categories.
"Jedi Mind Trick" causes the target to believe something.
"Suggestion/Command/Compulsion" type spells cause the target to do something specific.
"Devotion" causes the target to devote their life to the caster, and might be too much for an E6 spell. (Maybe a spell that creates a potion or charm-object or something).
I'd rename "Jedi Mind Trick," as "Change Mind," "Change Belief," or something similar. Jedi mind tricks can also be used for suggestion/command/compulsion effects, which is where my previous confusion came from.
If "devotion" lasts for a short enough period, it should be fine. Although I might be confusing what you mean with the "Dominate X" Spells.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
Second point: Do we want a first level spell that lets the Bard trivialize everything with Diplomancy? If you give the Bard a +10 to his Diplomacy checks, for 1 hour per caster level, you pretty much have Kilgrave the Purple Man trashing the campaign world.
The problem here is not the skill check having +10, it's the Core Diplomacy rules. Use instead the Giant's Fix, found right here on GitP, for example.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darth Ultron
The problem here is not the skill check having +10, it's the Core Diplomacy rules. Use instead the Giant's Fix, found right here on GitP, for example.
It's more the "1 hour/caster level."
Even with the Giant's diplomacy rules a +10 magic bonus gives that 2nd level bard from his article a decent chance to solo a dungeon and walk out with the MacGuffin. His Bard had a +14 to Diplomacy, cast a 1st level spell and that goes to +24.
So he strolls past the guardmooks (low HD, low Wisdom so DC 15, +5 Enemy, +5 Unfavorable deal puts it at DC 25--guaranteed success), and similarly past the minibosses.
Against an 8th level BBEG with a +2 to Wisdom, start at DC 25, +5 Enemy, +5 Unfavorable deal (you give me the MacGuffin and you get to escape unharmed because as a 2nd level bard alone I'm a terrifying threat and by the way give your former minions all your cool stuff I promised they could have to get them to switch sides), DC 35. Roll an 11 or better, the BBEG hands you the MacGuffin. 10 or less, the DM pulls out his hair as he has to run both sides of the BBEG vs The REst of the Dungeon fight while the Bard Inspires Courage.
It's 1 hour per caster level duration.
The target isn't Self, it's the humanoid targeted.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
It's more the "1 hour/caster level."
Even with the Giant's diplomacy rules a +10 magic bonus gives that 2nd level bard from his article a decent chance to solo a dungeon and walk out with the MacGuffin. His Bard had a +14 to Diplomacy, cast a 1st level spell and that goes to +24.
So he strolls past the guardmooks (low HD, low Wisdom so DC 15, +5 Enemy, +5 Unfavorable deal puts it at DC 25--guaranteed success), and similarly past the minibosses.
Against an 8th level BBEG with a +2 to Wisdom, start at DC 25, +5 Enemy, +5 Unfavorable deal (you give me the MacGuffin and you get to escape unharmed because as a 2nd level bard alone I'm a terrifying threat and by the way give your former minions all your cool stuff I promised they could have to get them to switch sides), DC 35. Roll an 11 or better, the BBEG hands you the MacGuffin. 10 or less, the DM pulls out his hair as he has to run both sides of the BBEG vs The REst of the Dungeon fight while the Bard Inspires Courage.
It's 1 hour per caster level duration.
To be clear, my suggested Charm Person still only works on one targeted NPC.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
Problem: Charm/ hypnotism/ mesmerism spells don’t work well in D&D, either 3X or 5th edition.
You mentioned only one difficulty. Can you list all the other reasons as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
Which is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
Some things that...
You are describing spells. Could be new spells. Perhaps an old spell changed to give a new option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
Game balance? If you keep doing it, people WILL kick your ass for being a prat.
'snot a game balance. It's a story balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
...overlaps and interacts with the Bluff skill. Can also interact with the Diplomacy skill...
and there's your problem –
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darth Ultron
The problem here is not the skill check having +10, it's the Core Diplomacy rules.
Exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darth Ultron
Use instead the Giant's Fix, found right here on GitP, for example.
Link?
You say you aim for the rotating gears behind the [compulsion] affect key-word, but you describe another thing completely.
I think that before we delve into the change to make, we should probably better enunciate the mission goal.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Indigo Knight
You mentioned only one difficulty. (They’re tricky to balance in general) Can you list all the other reasons as well?
I think it's one big difficulty--fuzzy effects like charm and illusion are hard to balance, so if not handled carefully can be either overwhelming "I win" buttons or get houseruled / interpreted into uselessness. Or they create arguments at the table that, while valid, are timesinks which leads players like me to just give up and choose more optimal spells--optimal in a CharOp sense and/or in a enjoy-the-game sense. Which is a shame, that significant elements of the fictional background of D&D pretty much get shoved off the TTRPG table.
What to do about it leads you to the various smaller difficulties, once you start looking under the hood and fiddling with the knobs etc.
"Maybe once I could have kept track of all that stuff, but now I'm old and tired and I just want a class which lets you stare at people until they drop down dead. --Joseph Manolo"
It's a BX class with a list of abilites based on historical mesmerists and advocates and what they claimed to be able to do. It's not exactly what I want, but the concept is someone who uses mostly close-range magic to get people to do what he wants, projecting power into people's minds to get them to believe and/or do stuff. Implant beliefs (temporarily or permanently), follow instructions (low end, the command spell, highest end would be Geas), and, at the high power end (which may not fit in the 3rd level spell power range) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
Quote:
You are describing spells. Could be new spells. Perhaps an old spell changed to give a new option.
Yeah. The trick is to write the spells in such a way that their effects are clear, and fit in the "sweet spot" between "trap option" and "I win button."
Quote:
'snot a game balance. It's a story balance.
Fair point. That's one of the benefits of E6, a kingdom or town is never overwhelmed by a character or a party.
Quote:
The problem here is not the skill check having +10, it's the Core Diplomacy rules.
and there's your problem –
This Old Rule: The Diplomacy Skill
Quote:
You say you aim for the rotating gears behind the [compulsion] affect key-word, but you describe another thing completely.
I think that before we delve into the change to make, we should probably better enunciate the mission goal.
(I don't think I actually said that, but doing a deep dive into the SRD wording of Enchantment, Charm, Compulsion would probably help.)
I like thematic casters. One aim is to have rules that support a campaign villain modelled after Jafar from Aladdin or Rasputin. More powerful in terms of the schemes to unravel than in terms of a straight up fight. Another aim is to give players the ability to actually use those spells in the game world to useful effect in that sweet spot--neither "you really can't use that in town because everyone will hate you, and you can't use it effectively in the dungeon because everything basically already hates you. Just do some damage or buff someone"
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
If this is still going, I'll try to put my previous musings into practice. Based on rferries' change to Charm Person.
Charm Person, Lesser
Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: One hour
Saving Throw: Willnegates
Resistance: Yes
This charm makes a humanoid creature more likely to trust you and your allies. You gain an enhancement bonus on Diplomacy checks made to influence that creature's attitude equal to double your caster level (maximum +30), and it always counts as "wanting to believe you" during Bluff checks (-5 penalty to the creature's Sense Motive check).
If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your intentions, or else be good at pantomiming.
When the spell ends, the creature knows it has been charmed, and reacts accordingly based on it's beliefs about mind-affecting magic and anything it has been convinced to do or agree with.
Charm Person
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 3
This spell functions as Lesser Charm Person, except that when the effect ends, the creature must make an additional will saving throw. On a failed save, the creature fails to realize it was charmed. A Greater Restoration spell causes the creature to realize any memories it has of the period were affected by being charmed.
Charm Person, Greater
Level: Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 5
This spell functions as Charm Person, except that when the effect ends, the creature fails to realize it was charmed. A Greater Restoration spell causes the creature to realize any memories it has of the period were affected by being charmed.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Reading Sandmote's adaptation of Rferries' refinement of the Charm Person spell, I realized another problem, at least from my point of view. It's now entirely dependent on the Diplomacy rules, which by RAW PCs are immune to. (This was already hinted at in the original 3rd edition spell, which makes the target Friendly which is only defined in the Diplomacy skill section. But by grinding down exactly what the spell effects and conditions would be, we've made it more explicit.)
I don't know what to do about that yet. Compelling PC action is a delicate situation for GMs.
But I think the lack of clarity in what exactly Charm Person does to PCs has driven it out of fashion as a DM tool.
(Can anyone remember a time in 3rd edition where a DM used charm person on a PC? Vampires use dominate person, but protection from evil counters that pretty effectively.
That's part of what I mean by a part of the game dropping out of play because the rules make it not worth bothering.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
(Can anyone remember a time in 3rd edition where a DM used charm person on a PC? Vampires use dominate person, but protection from evil counters that pretty effectively.
That's part of what I mean by a part of the game dropping out of play because the rules make it not worth bothering.
That's a good point. Spirit naga, succubi/erinyes... there must be others though.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
I think it's one big difficulty
In a sense you're right. I still argue that there is proper room for more deconstruction of main and minors bullet points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
"Maybe once I could have kept track of all that stuff, but now I'm old and tired and I just want a class which lets you stare at people until they drop down dead. --Joseph Manolo"
It's a BX class with a list of abilites based on historical mesmerists and advocates and what they claimed to be able to do. It's not exactly what I want, but the concept is someone who uses mostly close-range magic to get people to do what he wants, projecting power into people's minds to get them to believe and/or do stuff. Implant beliefs (temporarily or permanently), follow instructions (low end, the command spell, highest end would be Geas), and, at the high power end (which may not fit in the 3rd level spell power range)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
See, this is a bit muddled in a sense that some of it is agreed across the forums and some parts are a subjective view. E.g. "close-range magic" while I would envision the enchanter by presenting the Mesmer from Guild-Wars as a role model.
I'd love to help with building a better caster. But trying to match an idea from someone's mind is a bit over my (and most) ability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
Yeah. The trick is to write the spells in such a way that their effects are clear, and fit in the "sweet spot" between "trap option" and "I win button."
Wait. We were talking about creating a better caster; Now the goal changes to build better spells?
I'll try to suggest something, just as a starting point.
You clearly pointed, and others agree with you, that the division of Charm spells between "does not affect" and "completely dominate character's action" is unworkable and not fun. In order to subvert that we need to spread out the design space we have in the matter.
First, we note that there are two distinct cases: in combat, and out of combat. While the former rely heavily on attack bonuses, damage calculations, and saving rolls, the former uses more the infinite skill checks and loose roleplaying.
I don't have, on the spot, an idea for out of combat options. But I do have some items for in-combat:
- Enchanter determines a single action of the target.
- Enchanter chooses an action. Target gains bonus to enacting that action.
- Enchanter chooses an action. Target suffer penalties to any other action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sandmote
This charm makes a humanoid creature more likely to trust you and your allies. You gain an enhancement bonus on Diplomacy checks made to influence that creature's attitude equal to double your caster level (maximum +30), and it always counts as "wanting to believe you" during Bluff checks (-5 penalty to the creature's Sense Motive check).
If it were up to me to decide then I'd vote against it. I appreciate the effort invested, sandmote. But this is still a wishy-washy fluid construct of descriptive words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
Reading Sandmote's adaptation of Rferries' refinement of the Charm Person spell, I realized another problem, at least from my point of view. It's now entirely dependent on the Diplomacy rules, which by RAW PCs are immune to.
I've yet to read the diplomacy skill link. Going to read that in the next available moment before adding more ideas.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
The main problem with Charm spells, is that social skills just don't work realistically in D&D.
In real life, most fight would actually end with diplomacy and intimidation, because people don't want to die.
In order to make the game more technically interesting, most fight are kind of "forced" (at least with the DM I've had), and charm spells pose the problem that even a charm spell saying "the target behave in a rational way" may end the fight as a win. Because the opponents quite obviously have no chances to win against the PCs (because if the PCs have even 10% chance of loosing each fight, it means they will that they won't pass an adventuring week without losing one fight)
Accepting that charm spells can have a realistic effect on the outcome of a battle is accepting that "just talking" also could, which mean a encounter design quite different from standard encounter designs.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Indigo Knight
Wait. We were talking about creating a better caster; Now the goal changes to build better spells?
I've been under the impression the goal is to make it easier to play a specific archetype of caster, by building better spells. Which probably requires fixing social skills...
Problems within problems within problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Indigo Knight
I don't have, on the spot, an idea for out of combat options. But I do have some items for in-combat:
- Enchanter determines a single action of the target.
- Enchanter chooses an action. Target gains bonus to enacting that action.
- Enchanter chooses an action. Target suffer penalties to any other action.
I'm not sure to differentiate the first one from command. If you make the other two apply to specific actions, that could be really neat and thematic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Indigo Knight
If it were up to me to decide then I'd vote against it. I appreciate the effort invested, sandmote. But this is still a wishy-washy fluid construct of descriptive words.
Er, that wasn't the part where I invested anything?
My suggestion was to have an additional saving throw at the end of social spells, where the target affected by the spell realizes they were charmed on a success. That's the difference between the three spells.
But yeah, I'm pretty sure one of the issues is that anything based on the core 3.5e social rules is "wishy-washy fluid construct of descriptive words."
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sandmote
I've been under the impression the goal is to make it easier to play a specific archetype of caster, by building better spells. Which probably requires fixing social skills...
True. But we must start somewhere. Pick randomly if you must.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sandmote
If you make the other two apply to specific actions, that could be really neat and thematic.
The caster chooses which action to name when casting. And it's just an idea. You can change it however you'd like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sandmote
Er, that wasn't the part where I invested anything?
My suggestion was to have an additional saving throw at the end of social spells, where the target affected by the spell realizes they were charmed on a success. That's the difference between the three spells.
But yeah, I'm pretty sure one of the issues is that anything based on the core 3.5e social rules is "wishy-washy fluid construct of descriptive words."
Additional saving throw is something I can grasp. Character realizes they were charmed is a story driven item.
Look, compare prestidigitation to magic missile:
Spoiler: Prestidigitation
Show
Prestidigitations are minor tricks that novice spellcasters use for practice.
Once cast, a prestidigitation spell enables you to perform simple magical effects for 1 hour.
The effects are minor and have severe limitations.
A prestidigitation can slowly lift 1 pound of material.
It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round.
It can chill, warm, or flavor 1 pound of nonliving material.
It cannot deal damage or affect the concentration of spellcasters.
Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial.
The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components.
Finally, a prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects.
Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour.
Characters typically use prestidigitation spells to impress common folk, amuse children, and brighten dreary lives.
Common tricks with prestidigitations include producing tinklings of ethereal music, brightening faded flowers, creating glowing balls that float over your hand, generating puffs of wind to flicker candles, spicing up aromas and flavors of bland food, and making little whirlwinds to sweep dust under rugs.
Spoiler: Magic Missile
Show
A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage.
The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat or has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Inanimate objects are not damaged by the spell.
For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile—two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.
Talking about 1d4+1 points of force damage, concealment, number of missile, is more concise then mentioning minor tricks or simple magical effects. This is what I mean by wishy-washy. And I don't think an additional saving throw is going to help here. We need a mechanic that represent being under someone's influence and the degree: +number, -number, more actions, lower save rolls, what have you. And embed this where you think it fits - Spell? Skill? Class ability?
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
It's more the "1 hour/caster level."
Even with the Giant's diplomacy rules a +10 magic bonus gives that 2nd level bard from his article a decent chance to solo a dungeon and walk out with the MacGuffin. His Bard had a +14 to Diplomacy, cast a 1st level spell and that goes to +24.
So he strolls past the guardmooks (low HD, low Wisdom so DC 15, +5 Enemy, +5 Unfavorable deal puts it at DC 25--guaranteed success), and similarly past the minibosses.
Against an 8th level BBEG with a +2 to Wisdom, start at DC 25, +5 Enemy, +5 Unfavorable deal (you give me the MacGuffin and you get to escape unharmed because as a 2nd level bard alone I'm a terrifying threat and by the way give your former minions all your cool stuff I promised they could have to get them to switch sides), DC 35. Roll an 11 or better, the BBEG hands you the MacGuffin. 10 or less, the DM pulls out his hair as he has to run both sides of the BBEG vs The REst of the Dungeon fight while the Bard Inspires Courage.
It's 1 hour per caster level duration.
I think the giant's rework of diplomacy, while excellent, doesn't give enough weight to how much a favorable or unfavorable deal affects the potential outcome. I mean, with a +20 (which is not all that hard to get) you could persuade your worst nemesis to gift you stuff for free.
Personally, I'd double the modifiers for how much a deal is favorable, with the further caveat that sometimes a favorable deal will be accepted without needing to roll, and sometimes a very unfavorable deal cannot be passed, no matter what.
Oh, and I'd double also the modifier for relationship if you are offering an unfavorable deal: a friend is likely to give you a favor, an enemy is not.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
King of Nowere
I think the giant's rework of diplomacy, while excellent, doesn't give enough weight to how much a favorable or unfavorable deal affects the potential outcome. I mean, with a +20 (which is not all that hard to get) you could persuade your worst nemesis to gift you stuff for free.
That all hinges on how broad a view of the concept "free" you take. Let's say with each casting of "fast talking", you influence 1 interaction, using the Giant's Diplomacy skill as a basis (if PCs are targeted, maybe use Will save instead?) So with a "wand of fasttalking", you waltz through the dungeon and confront the BBEG, a 10th level NPC with no wisdom bonus, in his lair. Base DC is 15 + 10 levels, +5 for Enemy, +10 for Horrible deal (Give us the McGuffin and our under-levelled party won't attack you). That's a DC 45 check.
Figure we're talking about a 2nd level bard with +5 ranks, +5 from a 20 Charisma, +2 synergy, +3 from a feat, +2 for playing some munchkin race from a splatbook, +10 from the "fast talking" spell. That's a +27, so the bard needs to roll an 18 or better, which is not a good plan.
But let's say it works. BBEG hands over the MacGuffin to the PCs, who scamper off home. (I, personally, am thinking here of old Bugs Bunny cartoons where he fasttalks and flimflams Daffy Duck or Yosemite Sam).
Now the party has made a powerful enemy of the BBEG, who is going to come after them. (And, if the party tries the same methods again, the BBEG is now fairly rated as a Nemesis, moving the +5 to a +10). That's not 100% free. (And we come to the part where the enraged DAffy or Yosemite Sam starts hunting Bugs down for vengeance).
I'd say characters should benefit from the character-resource-investments they make. (This, like everything else in 3X, breaks down at higher levels where that +27 can be optimized to meet any arbitrary number you like. But in the E6 range I think or hope it can be made to work.)
Side note: we mentioned that it should be increasingly difficult to improve as you add skill ranks. 3X is supposed to model that in the XP tables. It takes a geometrically increasing amount of XP to reach each new level and add another skill point. That's the translation of the old West End STar Wars scale where increasing a skill from 5 to 6 cost 6, and from 6 to 7 cost 7--in those systems, "leveling" comes more quickly. So you're getting the same skill increase over the same amount of adventuring.
Of course, if you level every session or so instead of every 10 encounters, then you don't get that progression.
-
Re: I want Charm spells to work better in D&D. Let's brainstorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
King of Nowere
I think the giant's rework of diplomacy, while excellent, doesn't give enough weight to how much a favorable or unfavorable deal affects the potential outcome. I mean, with a +20 (which is not all that hard to get) you could persuade your worst nemesis to gift you stuff for free.
If you are concerned about the weight of parameters – you can double them or half the target number. Tweaking those is a minute thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
King of Nowere
…with the further caveat that sometimes a favorable deal will be accepted without needing to roll, and sometimes a very unfavorable deal cannot be passed, no matter what.
What will determine the sometimes? Who'll be the judge?
If your answer is "the DM", then you are forgetting that the DM already have a free hand to change rules and items as he please. Seems like a redundancy to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
...+2 synergy...
+4. I think that diplomacy benefit from 2 skills.
Also, I knew a guy that made a bard at 1st level with +41 to diplomacy. So...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
But let's say it works. BBEG hands over the MacGuffin to the PCs, who scamper off home. (I, personally, am thinking here of old Bugs Bunny cartoons where he fasttalks and flimflams Daffy Duck or Yosemite Sam).
Now the party has made a powerful enemy of the BBEG, who is going to come after them. (And, if the party tries the same methods again, the BBEG is now fairly rated as a Nemesis, moving the +5 to a +10). That's not 100% free. (And we come to the part where the enraged DAffy or Yosemite Sam starts hunting Bugs down for vengeance).
I'd say characters should benefit from the character-resource-investments they make. (This, like everything else in 3X, breaks down at higher levels where that +27 can be optimized to meet any arbitrary number you like. But in the E6 range I think or hope it can be made to work.)
Well, yeah. I think that's obvious. If the players invested in something, then that something benefits them, either immediately or later on. Isn't this the point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnbragg
Side note: we mentioned that it should be increasingly difficult to improve as you add skill ranks. 3X is supposed to model that in the XP tables. It takes a geometrically increasing amount of XP to reach each new level and add another skill point. That's the translation of the old West End STar Wars scale where increasing a skill from 5 to 6 cost 6, and from 6 to 7 cost 7--in those systems, "leveling" comes more quickly. So you're getting the same skill increase over the same amount of adventuring.
I never made the connection of increasing Xp cost as a way to model the investment to improve one's abilities (not the 6 abilities). I talk about it more in the other thread, but suffice to say that I disagree with your viewpoint.
I've reread the redesign of the Diplomacy skill. It's better than vanilla, that's for sure. Maybe there's a place for fine tuning or tiny improvement. Like rising difficulty for consecutive skill use against same target.
Still! That is the skill. There's no (understandably) reference for [compulsion] spells. So we're still confronted with the spell. What does it do? What is it's place? What is it's uses? Why not simply roll a bard and use the skill to convince everyone for lay down their weapon and walk after him.
