You just gained a level in real life! What class would you take?

[Quarian Rex]

Note that you can hide Psionic Displays with a Concentration check.

And doing that consistently at low levels would be all but impossible. Once you are skilled enough to manifest without chance of detection you will probably also have better options for manipulation available as well.

Not really. It drives you mad with repeated, frequent occurrence. It fools you by making them unpredictable. Yeah, if a sound happens a second time after a short period when you are mentally primed you can zero in on it. But a one off? Not so much. I mean, have you ever had to listen for which battery between three smoke alarms was dying? And that's dealing with something you know about.

You seem to have missed the point. Random one-off usage wouldn't be a problem (as I mentioned in the post that you quoted). As I said, it is the long-term target, who is getting repeat exposure (you know "with repeated, frequent occurrence"), that will be the issue.

No, it wouldn't. Random sounds are a fact of life. Unless you're actively looking for the source, where they come from isn't going to be of much concern to anyone. And even if someone did think that it sounded like it came from inside their head, they're likely to self-diagnose that as a sign of mental instability and try to ignore it, not go running off saying "Quarian is beaming sounds directly into my brain!" No matter how true it is, it sounds insane.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. These are not random sounds found in life, free of any other stimulus. This is a sound that doesn't seem to be going through their ears that happens just before you (mysteriously) become their best friend and then later you stop being their best friend, just as mysteriously. Would this be seen as amiss when you use it to seal the deal with a random Tinder hookup? No, I wouldn't think so.

But each time you use it on the same person again and again (to gain yourself a more long term advantage) you create a pattern that will be noticed, especially as you get closer to more powerful individuals. You are causing very real acute emotional shifts in the target that are decidedly not natural to them. When they continually experience massive emotional upheaval that is solely for your benefit the 'insane' answers start seeming a lot less crazy ("Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" and that sort of thing).

Will they immediately think that you are using Psionic powers? Probably not, they have no frame of reference for that sort of thing. But everyone has heard of MK Ultra, subliminal advertising, even the brown note. The idea that there are ways to manipulate us through whatever means are persistent tropes in our culture. Realizing that you are being manipulated (in this situation) would not be difficult when you provide them with a convenient trigger stimuli and repeated exposure to remove doubt as to the cause and effect. Assuming that such ham-fisted manipulations will go unnoticed would be an act bordering on the suicidal.

Just not the one's you're thinking.

I'm thinking this through from a lot of angles (it's a fun exercise) but it seems as if you willfully... aren't. Interesting tactic. Probably just means that you'll be the first to be vivisected by the powers-that-be before you have the power to ensure an escape clause. Good luck with that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

And doing that consistently at low levels would be all but impossible. Once you are skilled enough to manifest without chance of detection you will probably also have better options for manipulation available as well.

The DC is 15 + the power level. By level 3 you can take 10 and hide the display for a 1st level power without the risk of failure.

If you've got a +1 to CON, you can do it at level 2.

[Quarian Rex]

The DC is 15 + the power level. By level 3 you can take 10 and hide the display for a 1st level power without the risk of failure.

If you've got a +1 to CON, you can do it at level 2.

Threat of discovery would prevent taking 10, similarly to not being able to take 10 on Move Silently checks. Not saying that you can't suppress the manifestation, just that you can't do it consistently at low levels, and consistency is the key factor here. Every time you fail is additional attention drawn to your supernatural influence. It can/will be noticed regardless (when you give the target enough opportunities to do so), the Mental display is just a (quite literal) bell announcing it every time.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Threat of discovery would prevent taking 10, similarly to not being able to take 10 on Move Silently checks.

That's not how taking 10 works. You can take 10 unless you're being rushed or threatened. The example given for the latter is combat.

[Deophaun]

You seem to have missed the point. Random one-off usage wouldn't be a problem (as I mentioned in the post that you quoted).

I'm not talking one-off usage.

As I said, it is the long-term target, who is getting repeat exposure (you know "with repeated, frequent occurrence"), that will be the issue.

There are hours, days, between usage. Go ahead. Tell me which one of your smoke alarms is going off when they only beep once a day.

Again, you seem to be missing the point.

Oh no, I get your point. You just clear aren't getting mine.

That's not how taking 10 works. You can take 10 unless you're being rushed or threatened. The example given for the latter is combat.

For that matter, expending your psionic focus for an automatic 15 is a thing.

[Quarian Rex]

That's not how taking 10 works. You can take 10 unless you're being rushed or threatened. The example given for the latter is combat.

Like I said before, I'm working under the assumption that our reality is not an overly permissive DM. Threat of discovery is still being threatened. I wouldn't bet my life on it being otherwise.

[Deophaun]

Like I said before, I'm working under the assumption that our reality is not an overly permissive DM. Threat of discovery is still being threatened.

Uh, no. Being threatened is being subject to an AoO. Period. End of story. This is not overly permissive DM ruling.

And yes, before anyone says anything, you do threaten things, not just squares, as the PHB actually talks about threatening everything within a square, not just the square itself.

[Quarian Rex]

I'm not talking one-off usage.

Ahem...

Not really. It drives you mad with repeated, frequent occurrence. It fools you by making them unpredictable. Yeah, if a sound happens a second time after a short period when you are mentally primed you can zero in on it. But a one off? Not so much. I mean, have you ever had to listen for which battery between three smoke alarms was dying? And that's dealing with something you know about.

You seem to have missed the point. Random one-off usage wouldn't be a problem (as I mentioned in the post that you quoted). As I said, it is the long-term target, who is getting repeat exposure (you know "with repeated, frequent occurrence"), that will be the issue.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting which of your statements I'm replying to.

There are hours, days, between usage. Go ahead. Tell me which one of your smoke alarms is going off when they only beep once a day.

If that once a day beep was followed by me then thinking that the smoke alarm in my kitchen is my best friend, and feel an inexplicable urge to go along with the suggestions made by said smoke alarm, for hours at a time, and then... not, I would probably be able to piece together the culprit... immediately? Wouldn't you?

Oh no, I get your point. You just clear aren't getting mine.

You seem to be proving the opposite. I get your point completely. You believe that the people around you in your actual life will be forced to react identically to disposable NPCs in a campaign where you have a pushover DM who doesn't like fleshing out characters. That seems to sum up what you have expressed so far. My point is that actual people have an amazing ability to screw up any plan (especially if it is poorly thought out or based on faulty assumptions), will respond in exactly the way you don't want, and that actual reality won't skew things in favor of the PCs for the sake of moving the game along. These are the points that you seem to be in direct opposition to.

Really, that is fine. Tis a matter of perspective after all. If it would turn out that reality interprets everything in the best light possible for the PCs, hand-waves spell interactions with the people around us, and fudges 20s on our behalf then I'll just be that much further ahead. If you were to find yourself in a less tailored world with deeper complexity to interactions between game mechanics and the greater world you would be in a far more dangerous situation that you seem to think possible. This later situation is just something that I find to be more interesting.

Remember, it was this statement...

By the way, shouldn't everyone with a Charm sla/spell/power 3 years ago already have behind-the-scene control of at least a country or two by now?

... and the implication that the lowest level forms of supernatural manipulation could/would lead to world domination, that I'm digging into and finding greater layers of complexity. That complexity and ways to overcome it or use it to ones advantage are what is most fascinating about this particular mental exercise. If you find that a threat to your build or something... *shrug*. Start thinking outside the box.

[ben-zayb]

And that is exactly my point. Charming your supervisor for your yearly review at S-Mart can cause minimal fallout, and is a far cry from what I was actually responding to, this...

The idea that the application D&D power in the real world will somehow mirror what is seen in a theoretical optimization white room could be a fatal mistake in this kind of scenario.

Hmm, so you are objecting to my inquiry because you mistakenly assumed that the statement meant acting opposite of what's expected from a character who relies on good mental ability scores? It seems to me at least Red Fel and I found greater layers of complexity in that initial statement, but I have an idea who didn't.

Not sure how it works over there in Pf, but nonepic 3.5 Diplomacy isn't a mind-affecting compulsion/charm effect, but an outright change in outlook or attitude. The Charm might wear off, but the change in attitude from the Diplomacy check that was done easier via the power stays.

It's less "Wait, why do I really feel like he's more charming than normal whenever we're talking in person instead of through less personal mediums?" and more "How can you possibly not love this guy?" Heck, plenty of people IRL already naturally pull of an effect on a regular basis that begs that first question. You just augment your abilities massively with psionics. It's almost as if communication IRL gets better and richer the more up-close and personal it is.

Also, the point about Displays has already been addressed, twice no less:
1. One can take 10 on the Concentration check if not threatened by an AoO
2. Psionic characters can "take 15" on the Concentration check by expending psionic focus if not threatened by an AoO

The DM being permissive or not doesn't enter into that. That's literally the rules as written, cut and dry, with no wiggle room for an unpermissive DM other than to invoke Rule 0, in which case you are now assuming that there exists a DM.

Setting houserules on what constitutes a threatened square is outside the bounds of Rules as Written, and you happen to be in the RAW thread, so deal with that, maybe? I don't care that the world wouldn't necessarily interpret in the best light for the PCs, but I expect it to interpret the d&d rules by what's written.

[Deophaun]

You seem to be conveniently forgetting which of your statements I'm replying to.

You need to look up the definition of equivocation. I'm using one-off in a per encounter basis, which should be obvious considering the constant references to a need for repeated times in a short period to track down the location of a sound. You're using one-off for... well... forever. That's why I'm talking about a one-off, not a one-off.

If that once a day beep was followed by me then thinking that the smoke alarm in my kitchen is my best friend,

Do you? We know the attitude shifts immediately, but nothing states that you automatically start thinking how dreamy the charmer is. You hear a noise while you're typing up your TPS report. Why aren't you still thinking about your TPS report? It's only some time after when the charmer shows up that you realize what a swell guy he is. Spells/powers only do what they say they do, and this power doesn't say that it immediately puts you in the target's head, so it doesn't.

You seem to be proving the opposite. I get your point completely. You believe that the people around you in your actual life will be forced to react identically to disposable NPCs in a campaign where you have a pushover DM who doesn't like fleshing out characters.

Actually, I believe people will still work according to human psychology, as opposed to how a stereotypical nerd who considers himself a gritty, realistic, killer DM would imagine human psychology to work.

I mean, I know several people who a) passionately hate Bill Clinton and b) have met the man in person. They will all tell you the guy is a charismatic warlock where 10 minutes afterwards they were wondering what the hell happened to make them love the guy while they were talking to him. Do you think if they heard a strange sound five minutes beforehand that they would jump to mind-control?

[Quarian Rex]

Hmm, so you are objecting to my inquiry because you mistakenly assumed that the statement meant acting opposite of what's expected from a character who relies on good mental ability scores? It seems to me at least Red Fel and I found greater layers of complexity in that initial statement, but I have an idea who didn't.

Let me take a moment to unruffle your feathers and unrustle your jimmies. At no point was I attempting to disparage you mental ability scores (and I don't think that anything I posted implies such). You made an off-hand and light-hearted comment that I thought deserved some deeper consideration from a more realistic viewpoint. Kudos to you for provoking thought. Looking at casual game elements placed into the real world is the point of the thread. That requires challenging preconceptions that we have in the game. That can make things sticky, as can be seen.

In this particular scenario how game mechanics will interact with baseline reality is a pretty huge unknown. Make no mistake, this is a homebrew campaign world and we don't know how many interactions will play out. Just look at all of the clarifications that Troacctid has had to make over the last few years to see the truth of that point. We still don't know if other planes exist, if outsiders are what they seem or are just magical constructs (not necessarily the creature type) and how many spells and rules will interact. The most common answer is "You do not know the answer to that when you make your decision". That implies that much is still up in the air and appeals to RAW (ambiguous or otherwise) may not be your best course of action.

Both you and Red Fel did a much better job of further evaluating the situation but still left me with more questions and considerations, hence the following posts. Even the comment about your Mental display was not a 'gotcha' moment, just pointing out how many things we tend to overlook in a gaming environment that would cause problems in ours. Everything that I have said about the challenges of using a Charm effect are fully applicable to someone casting the spell Stilled and Silent (or equivalent). Overt short-term emotional manipulation is a noticeable effect that would be very problematic when used for long term manipulation for all the reasons that I previously stated. Mental chimes, somatic hand-waves, verbal chanting, and thrusting weird holy symbols in peoples faces (the standard trappings of spell/power/whatever use) merely draw more attention to an existing problem, it is not that they are the sole problem.

Not sure how it works over there in Pf, but nonepic 3.5 Diplomacy isn't a mind-affecting compulsion/charm effect, but an outright change in outlook or attitude. The Charm might wear off, but the change in attitude from the Diplomacy check that was done easier via the power stays.

Are you willing to bet your life on that? I'm not. I won't even hinge any plans on that sort of thing.

It's less "Wait, why do I really feel like he's more charming than normal whenever we're talking in person instead of through less personal mediums?" and more "How can you possibly not love this guy?" Heck, plenty of people IRL already naturally pull of an effect on a regular basis that begs that first question. You just augment your abilities massively with psionics. It's almost as if communication IRL gets better and richer the more up-close and personal it is.

That's the point I'm trying to make. What you describe is what we kind of expect from our experiences at the game table. But Charm effects don't really work like that. They are not a natural extension of personal charisma undetectable from the real thing. There is no period of "This guy seems alright. He's got some charm. Sure I kinda like him". There is "Who the hell is this guy? *BAM* You are my BEST FRIEND! Sure, I'll do anything (with a moderate Cha check) for my bestie!". And after a couple of hours "*BAM* Now why did I help that douchecanoe?". That is what the spell/effect actually does. Sounds jarring doesn't it? I think that it would be. It is only a low level effect and so has no lingering aspects, doesn't 'massage' the targets memories to make things more palatable, nothing like that.

This is what I'm digging at. Our expectations from gaming are going to be wildly different from the effects of some things in the real world. I think that is worth exploring.

The DM being permissive or not doesn't enter into that. That's literally the rules as written, cut and dry, with no wiggle room for an unpermissive DM other than to invoke Rule 0, in which case you are now assuming that there exists a DM.

Setting houserules on what constitutes a threatened square is outside the bounds of Rules as Written, and you happen to be in the RAW thread, so deal with that, maybe? I don't care that the world wouldn't necessarily interpret in the best light for the PCs, but I expect it to interpret the d&d rules by what's written.

See, this is where you are way off base. As I mentioned above this is explicitly a homebrew scenario. RAW arguments to get a TO advantage may backfire spectacularly.

Just look at the end of the OP...

Q: I have a question about how a particular rules interaction would work under this model.
A: You can ask in the thread, but general rule of thumb, if you would normally have to consult with your DM about how it works, you don't know the answer as you make your decision. You'd have to try the interaction and find out for yourself.

Like I said, a lot is still up in the air. Proceed with caution my friend. That's what I'm trying to do.

[Kalkra]

Hypnotism gets around a lot of the problems with Charm Person (i.e. range, duration, etc.) What I find more of a problem is that people do sometimes make their will saves. At the very least, natural 20s happen about one time in twenty. That can get really awkward. Still, that may not even be necessary. I mean, if you're not even trying to follow the rules, you could amass a large amount of wealth just from relatively simple things, especially if you can use Psionic Minor Creation to make drugs, and more importantly if those drugs don't cause massive problems when they disappear from your body after being absorbed. Or you could open a killer restaurant with Create Food and Water and Prestidigitation. Heck, with Create Food and Water you don't need to buy food, with Endure Elements you don't need A/C or heating, and with Cure Light Wounds and Lesser Restoration you can probably avoid most medical expenses. The problems on come when the authorities start asking questions.

[Quarian Rex]

Or you could open a killer restaurant with Create Food and Water and Prestidigitation.

Yeah, but the takeout/doggy bags would be disgusting. Would have to make it restaurant policy that no one gets left overs.

[Florian]

@ben-zayb:

The PF version is very toned-down compared to 3.5E, as are spells like Charm Person and quite often, you have to use both in tandem.

@Using enchantments to dominate the world:

Contrary to how the media depicts it (and let's don't get started with conspirator theories), that doesn't really work out, at least when not talking about a first or third generation democracy (See Huntington for this).

@Using divinations to get rich quick:

We already do this in more or less mundane ways, one of the reasons Quants are paid so well. It will depend on the primary question(s) asked for your Augury, tho, the more interesting ones being pulling off a Soros and asking "Can this plan topple the GBP and will I make a billion of it?", but you'd need to come up with the plan first.

[Troacctid]

See, this is where you are way off base. As I mentioned above this is explicitly a homebrew scenario. RAW arguments to get a TO advantage may backfire spectacularly.

Just look at the end of the OP...

Like I said, a lot is still up in the air. Proceed with caution my friend. That's what I'm trying to do.

It's not so much homebrew as RAI. Things work in this universe the way that they'd be expected to work...well, in-universe.

[ben-zayb]

At no point was I attempting to disparage you mental ability scores (and I don't think that anything I posted implies such).

I never thought that was your intent. Instead, it puzzled me why you made a shallow interpretation of "someone attempting to charm the movers and shakers straight up" when the point of the statement was that it has already been 3 years of playing the long sociopolitical game.


And as Troacctid just pointed out. Rules work the way they should be expected to work, and the ones for Psionic Charm and Diplomacy are already clearly laid out in their expected result, cut and dry. The same way 1st level characters gain a feat and Fighter class having full BAB, there's not much room for ambiguity on what these rules state.

[Shalist]

Annual reminder that the 'magical training' feat lets you choose 2 or 3 (spontaneous vs. prepared) cantrips, for 3 castings per day (total), so you can take any class you want and still have prestidigitation and mend.


For 2020, (3.5) Artificer 4 => Artificer 5

Spoiler: 2017

Show

I can't give up spontaneous quality-of-life spells, but I am changing my 2nd level to artificer (3.5, since I'm less familiar with PF). Besides, one could always use Dark Souls playthroughs as rebuild quests for retaking these levels.

Bestow Curse is a 2nd level spell on the demonologist list (Consolidated List of "Bargain Bin" Spells for Artificers), meaning an artificer could be scribing it at level 1. You get 2 UMD attempts per scroll, would only be out $3 if you fail both, and further success will be trivial after the first scroll.

Spoiler: Final Build, spell selection

Show

Sorc1/art1. 13/12/11 int, cha, wis; 10/9/8 con, str, dex.
Versatile spellcaster and heighten spell for my initial feats.

Arcane spells:
1) endure elements: To greatly increase my travel options and comfort.
1) feather fall: For some incredible skydiving.
0) mending: Convenience and financial freedom.
0) prestigidation: Cleaning, pranks (i.e. changing how things taste), etc.
0) launch item: ("Challenge -me- to a water balloon fight?")
0) stick: Everything is Velcro! ("I have -what- stuck to my back?")

Artificer infusions:
1) skill enhancement: Realistically, +2 to any specific skill for 10 minutes/lvl would be a fairly noticeable boost.
1) weapon augmentation, personal: Grants a weapon any +1 enhancement (or up to +10,000 i.e. spellblades are +6,000g) for 10 minutes/lvl; that's a pretty big list ('silent strike' to silence yourself, 'merciful' firearms, 'wrecker' to ignore hardness, or a 'bane' for any situation).

For now, I'll be exploiting bestow curse to help with medical and energy research (i.e. 'cursing' researchers with +6 int / wis and +4 to all skill and ability checks); and, naturally, using it to 'max myself out' for my current resources (numerical bonuses, extra feats, youth, total anonymity, etc.).

Spoiler: 2018

Show

The scrolls cost 3x what I thought (Artificers can craft items 2 levels early but still pay as if the CL were normal), but that's trivial. Assuming the previous year of bestowing benign curses went well, I'll be continuing in this vein for another year.

Sorc1/Art1 -> Sorc1/Art2.

You found that any attempts to bestow a purely beneficial curse failed. Experimentation revealed that it was possible to include beneficial effects in a curse, but only if they were accompanied by negative side effects. In the process, you and/or anyone else you tested this on probably acquired some curses that were more uncomfortable than intended, which you'll probably want to remove.

Spoiler: 2019

Show

Sorc1/Art2 -> Sorc1/Art3. Retrain to Art4. Gaining two flaws (shaky / vulnerable). 1 point into int.

Feats (some retraining): 6x 'exceptional artisan' (crafting time * 0.75), 1x 'magical artisan (all crafting costs * 0.75); (2 feats for level 1, 2 for flaws, 1 for level 3, 1 for artificer 4, and occasionally 1 for bestow curse). For a total multiplier of 0.133 for time, and 0.75 for $$ cost.

I'll start plucking more low-hanging fruit for personally staying out of the news: magical disguises, relying on wealthy sponsors / organizations to make various arrangements, etc..

====

4th level artificer nets me 'craft homunculus,' i.e. 'dedicated wright,' which builds magic items for me while I'm busy being lazy.

I can now craft wondrous items, and emulate 3rd level spells* (or up to 6th level domain spells via 'divine crusader' class spell list i.e. heal of the healing domain) for the purpose of item creation. I will initially focus on items to help my UMD ('circlet of persuasion' combined with an 'admiral's bicorne', 'cloak of charisma +6' for a total +8 UMD/charisma checks).

Beyond that, while there's a ton of things I'd like to make, I'll focus on healing items. Somehow I doubt automatically resetting traps of cure disease, remove blindness/deafness, etc., will work, but I'll give 'em a shot. Otherwise I'll create 'trumpets of healing,' which can heal one person per day, and 3x/day can perform various healing spells (CSW, remove blindness/deafness, cure disease, neutralize poison) on all non-evil folks within 360'. With a base cost of 116k, it'll take 16 days to make each one, so I'll have 20 of them in circulation in the first year.

Note that a sphere with a radius of 360' has a volume of 195 million cubic feet, or 1.6 million 5' cubes; I'll let the insurance companies and/or charitable organizations figure out the logistics of milking that for all it's worth.

Alternately (additionally), I'd craft items with significant outside-context benefits: 'third eye sense' (MIC, clairvoyance) for space exploration (or teleportation if I can restrict/deweaponize it a bit), 'decanters of water' for Red Cross or engineers/NASA, and so on.

Dragoneye runes (arcane mark / GPS tracker) on expensive items wouldn't hurt, though there's enough divination resources available to aid in retrieval.

====

On curses, giving permanent benign curses with a minor negative side affects is kosher (per 2018 spoiler); adding clauses to break or suppress the curse (kissing a frog // hopping on one leg while saying "Waffles!" // etc.) is trivial (RAW it's a weaker curse, and it's largely established in lore). One hiccup I didn't notice years ago is "Same spell, different results," which means someone can only have one curse active at a time.

Still, a sizable number of researchers and engineers have likely accepted a '+6 to all knowledge (or craft, or profession) skills' curse, which is a huge deal. That large of a bonus could turn anyone into a leading expert, much less people who're already leaders or seasoned veterans of their fields. I'll likely focus on medical, energy, recycling, and software design.

My own curse will either be be a bonus (time/cost reduction) feat, or something to boost UMD if I'm working on cheaper items where I've only a couple chances to make the DC 20 - 26 UMD check with my +16 modifier.

edit: ack, meant to just copy/paste this post, not edit it.

[Quertus]

Nice I am 4th level now.

*laughs maniacally when homunculi just became available*

Okay, I am getting some homunculi, mostly because my "secret" base is a good place to build stuff there but I am only able to use it on weekends and stuff.

The homunculi are going to be working on two directions.

They are going to grow assorted vegetable aliments to then turn them into food (a trap of guidance of the avatar is going to be keeping the checks consistently high). They are also going to be crafting some stuff (assorted necessary items for the base, jewelry for trade) from the iron and stone (from the wall traps) and we are going to get some on the market, to trade for stuff that can't be generated with magic yet.

Then when I have some homunculi to get my back I am going to try an experiment (arming the critters with self made spears) I am going to carve a magic circle against good, a dimensional anchor, and then I am going to lesser planar bind an elysian thrush. Yes, an elysian thrush is a CR 1/4 bird that cannot add much value. But if I can get one called, it is clear that other planes exist. And can be accessed. As a bird I can surely use handle animal to get it to be my pet, hopefully the nice vegetables and fruits will give a good enough circumstance bonus... I have severe problems sleeping, so a bird that sings and makes sleep easy sounds like not the worst pet to have.

Other than that, I am making a new spell storing item trap, so I can have one at hand, to access 2nd level spells on the go (guidance of the avatar yay).

Next year though it's going to be fun, so I am going to be taking this one easy making sure my base is comfy.

I'm rather embarrassed that I haven't looked at it from this PoV. The exact strategy you described would be quite beneficial to me.

Although I did have plans to experiment with summoning, outer planes, etc - I just haven't figured when to fit them into my limited (until i know the rules of the game) spell budget.

And this is exacerbated by my annoyance at my failure last year. Because I hadn't read the rules carefully, and failed notice that, RAW, prestidigitation was not guaranteed to be "Least Wish", as it lacks the explicitly open-ended language of 2e's Cantrip spell. Although I'd argue that, since the examples do not follow from the list of abilities, that a "or anything else in this power range" is implied, it nonetheless limits the spell's usefulness to me in understanding the rules. So I've been looking at my spell selection carefully, attempting to free up room for the experiments I want/need to run before taking spells (like Wish) that will be horrible if they don't work as expected (ie, no planes, I have to research each individual application of Wish etc).

OP, Speaking of understanding the rules: I've been going under the assumption that *something* has let us know that we get to level up, take feats, etc (for simplicity, I've visualized it similar to a HUD). I've similarly assumed that the exact same something provides feedback if we attempt to take something invalid (homebrew, things we don't have the prerequisites for, etc) - and that this feedback exists for when we, say, try to Sculpt Self something that won't be allowed yet due to your "no early entry" rule. Is the feedback of the form (as I visualize it in my HUD) "not available until 20xx", or simply greyed out? In other words, by wanting to do something that goes against the "no early entry" rules, could I have divined the "no early entry" rules?

[Quarian Rex]

I never thought that was your intent. Instead, it puzzled me why you made a shallow interpretation of "someone attempting to charm the movers and shakers straight up" when the point of the statement was that it has already been 3 years of playing the long sociopolitical game.

And I've gone into fairly lengthy detail as to why I think that, even with 3 years of playing the long-game, reliance on Charm effects may be detrimental for upward mobility. Remember, your original comment was essentially 'Charm + 3 years = World Domination', that struck me as false and the rest has been exploration of the point.

It's not so much homebrew as RAI. Things work in this universe the way that they'd be expected to work...well, in-universe.

I get ya. In my experience most homebrew/houserules (from a campaign perspective) are attempts to make ambiguous/wonky rules work as the DM thinks they should. I think that we are all aware that may me somewhat distant from various interpretations of RAW.

And as Troacctid just pointed out. Rules work the way they should be expected to work, and the ones for Psionic Charm and Diplomacy are already clearly laid out in their expected result, cut and dry. The same way 1st level characters gain a feat and Fighter class having full BAB, there's not much room for ambiguity on what these rules state.

As Troacctid just mentioned things will be interpreted by RAI, not any particular interpretation of RAW. To that end, the idea that Charm Person can be made permanent through the use of Diplomacy during its normal duration is one possible RAW interpretation (one that you obviously favor) but I don't think anyone can make a convincing argument that it is RAI. In that case the interpretations of 3.5 Diplomacy that I previously posted may hold true in this reality, and that would be to your detriment. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

[ben-zayb]

And I've gone into fairly lengthy detail as to why I think that, even with 3 years of playing the long-game, reliance on Charm effects may be detrimental for upward mobility. Remember, your original comment was essentially 'Charm + 3 years = World Domination', that struck me as false and the rest has been exploration of the point.

All of your tangent about people detecting psionic charm has long since been proven circumventable, while your dillomacy tangent is basically a houserule. Nobody has to interpret Diplomacy rules, because what's actually written is straight forward. Whether a person favors or disfavors the rules working the way it does is irrelevant--the rules don't particularly care about that.You, on the other hand, are the one trying to add interpretations on diplomacy rules, which it doesn't need.

As for RAI, that can only be determined by the author or maybe the editors themselves. Please don't put words in Troacctid's mouth by claiming she said "
not any particular interpretation of RAW". She claimed no such thing. Her RAI response was directed at you for misunderstanding her Q&A as her homebrew houserules.

And since that question only pertains whenever one "would normally have to consult with your DM about how it works," situations where clearly defined rules, such as in Charm effects and diplomacy, would not apply to that question.

To repeat what was said:

Things work in this universe the way that they'd be expected to work...well, in-universe.

That's everything needed to understand how charm effects and diplomacy would work. As expected.

Frankly, considering what other posters chose to do, I wouldn't even worry that much about the under-radar activities my fictional character version does. On the contrary, the long game strategy I had stated in my first post of the thread should provide my character more than enough distraction to take scrutinizing eyes off of my fiction-self's activities.

[Troacctid]

@Troacctid

Researching custom magic items y/n? Not of the power-gaming or cost-cutting variety, so much as developing semi-unique effects or restrictions like many regular magic items have.

Yes, you can do that.

[Red Fel]

In this particular scenario how game mechanics will interact with baseline reality is a pretty huge unknown. Make no mistake, this is a homebrew campaign world and we don't know how many interactions will play out. Just look at all of the clarifications that Troacctid has had to make over the last few years to see the truth of that point. We still don't know if other planes exist, if outsiders are what they seem or are just magical constructs (not necessarily the creature type) and how many spells and rules will interact. The most common answer is "You do not know the answer to that when you make your decision". That implies that much is still up in the air and appeals to RAW (ambiguous or otherwise) may not be your best course of action.

*SNIP*

That's the point I'm trying to make. What you describe is what we kind of expect from our experiences at the game table. But Charm effects don't really work like that. They are not a natural extension of personal charisma undetectable from the real thing. There is no period of "This guy seems alright. He's got some charm. Sure I kinda like him". There is "Who the hell is this guy? *BAM* You are my BEST FRIEND! Sure, I'll do anything (with a moderate Cha check) for my bestie!". And after a couple of hours "*BAM* Now why did I help that douchecanoe?". That is what the spell/effect actually does. Sounds jarring doesn't it? I think that it would be. It is only a low level effect and so has no lingering aspects, doesn't 'massage' the targets memories to make things more palatable, nothing like that.

This is what I'm digging at. Our expectations from gaming are going to be wildly different from the effects of some things in the real world. I think that is worth exploring.

As a matter of fact, I'm banking on game mechanics differing substantially from real life. Because real life has a thing called "cognitive dissonance," and the game does not.

Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? It works like this. Where your subjective opinion differs from what you objectively see, your brain has a minor freak-out, and will generally resolve the issue in favor of objective facts.

Do you know how this applies to the issue at hand? It's simple, and a proven psychological hack. There's a story told about how Benjamin Franklin had an adversary, someone who opposed him publicly. Franklin, having opened the country's first subscription library, asked this individual to donate some books from his private collection - a minor favor, easily granted. Thereafter, the guy became a Franklin supporter. Why? Cognitive dissonance. He had to reconcile a subjective opinion - that he disliked Franklin - with an objective fact - that he did something nice for Franklin. His brain resolved it as such: "I did something nice for him. Clearly, then, I don't dislike him."

I'm banking on the fact that game mechanics - such as Charm - will end, but that the memory of those actions will remain. And a person, confronted with those mildly out-of-character actions, will have a moment of cognitive dissonance before resolving the situation in favor of the objective facts. They will remember having liked me and done nice things for me, and conclude that they must have liked me and done these things voluntarily.

Ironically, despite spells and powers like Charm effectively ending, pursuant to cognitive dissonance, they may actually enjoy added effect, as the afflicted party naturally concludes that they are in fact friendlier towards you than they started. I'm anticipating that. I'm expecting that when the effect ends, the person will conclude that they liked me because they liked me, and continue to like me, power descriptions be damned. Because where game rules end, real life rules begin, and knowing how to hack a real-life brain comes in pretty handy.

[Maat Mons]

Ben Franklin story

As I recall his accounting of that incident in his autobiography, the thing with the books was just to give old Ben a pretext for repeatedly telling whats-his-face how very grateful he was. And, while thanking the guy and commending his generosity, Franky laid on the charm thick enough to win him over.

So, if you want to duplicate this strategy, what you actually need to do is use Charm Person to get yourself "an in," a good chance to talk with your target on friendly terms. That's when you use the Diplomacy skill to improve their attitude.

[Elricaltovilla]

As I recall his accounting of that incident in his autobiography, the thing with the books was just to give old Ben a pretext for repeatedly telling whats-his-face how very grateful he was. And, while thanking the guy and commending his generosity, Franky laid on the charm thick enough to win him over.

So, if you want to duplicate this strategy, what you actually need to do is use Charm Person to get yourself "an in," a good chance to talk with your target on friendly terms. That's when you use the Diplomacy skill to improve their attitude.

Kind of like how it works in the game. Big surprise there.

[Quarian Rex]

All of your tangent about people detecting psionic charm has long since been proven circumventable

No, it really hasn't. The ability to suppress psionic components was brought up (the weakest element of detection) but you have never tried to address the potential issues with Charm effects themselves, you know, the primary point of contention.

... while your dillomacy tangent is basically a houserule. Nobody has to interpret Diplomacy rules, because what's actually written is straight forward.

Not really a houserule, more an ambiguous rule clarification. One that is addressed in most actual table games as well as Pathfinder (aka. D&D 3.75) because the original rule potentially allows Charm Person to be made permanent, undispellable, and [Ex] through the use of a single Diplomacy check, something that is almost universally (with the notable exception of you) considered to be the opposite of RAI. Many 3.5 rules, especially the Diplomacy rules, are anything but straight forward. That you seem unwilling to recognize this as even a possibility says more about you than the rules.

As a matter of fact, I'm banking on game mechanics differing substantially from real life. Because real life has a thing called "cognitive dissonance," and the game does not.

Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? It works like this. Where your subjective opinion differs from what you objectively see, your brain has a minor freak-out, and will generally resolve the issue in favor of objective facts.

Oh, I am quite familiar with cognitive dissonance, though your grasp of it seems to be a little fuzzy. Cognitive dissonance describes the stress experienced when someone holds contradictory beliefs, behaviors, ideas, and/or values. Cognitive dissonance is what happens when someone holds two opposing things to be true and can't resolve the issue.

I'm banking on the fact that game mechanics - such as Charm - will end, but that the memory of those actions will remain. And a person, confronted with those mildly out-of-character actions, will have a moment of cognitive dissonance before resolving the situation in favor of the objective facts. They will remember having liked me and done nice things for me, and conclude that they must have liked me and done these things voluntarily.

Cognitive dissonance is not a memory editing defense mechanism. What you are describing is closer to the Delirium caused by Werewolves in the Old World of Darkness. The closest thing to what you describe in our reality would be some possible effects of Split-brain syndrome where the left hemisphere can make up plausible explanations for unknown actions taken by the right hemisphere (take a look at the @1:00 mark here for a really good breakdown of the effect).

Your explanation for the Benjamin Franklin story is off as well. This is a pretty famous story mentioned in many Psych lectures and such as an effective example of social manipulation, using an effect where making a simple (as in requiring negligible effort) request of someone causes them to like you more (someone asking for your help is a sign that they hold you in higher regard, and we tend to like those who regard us highly), and also straight up flattery (when Benjamin Franklin, one of the most brilliant and well read men of his time, requests access and display of your personal library it is a high compliment, even to a rival, and Franklin was quite vocal about his appreciation, as mentioned by Maat Mons).

While memories can have questionable reliability that would be advantageous in ways that you might want, this is usually due to things like not getting a good enough look/long enough exposure to be sure of their perceptions, the Dunning–Kruger effect (explaining something away because it seems like that thing they saw on Facebook that one time), tribalism (if the *thing* happens within spitting distance of a vilified group/race/whatever then they can blame it on the [BLANK], no more thought required), or even just being tired of dwelling on an odd experience that never happened before and hasn't happened since. None of these are the reliable memory editing options that it seems you hoped cognitive dissonance was.

I do agree with you that these could be quite effective when used in combination with Charm effects, the first time. I have never even implied otherwise. The problems inherent to the Charm effect (as I see it) stem from repeated use in long-term social engineering. The more someone is exposed to the emotional slam-dance of Charm, the more obvious it becomes that this is not part of their normal human experience, the more their innate pattern recognition abilities come online (humans are sooo good at finding patterns, like this emotional flux always being in the form of intense friendship towards you), and the less justification their memories can provide for this being something other that what it is. If you see a UFO you can hand-wave it away. If you keep seeing UFOs, over and over again (being verified and re-verified by your senses), you have to come up with an actual explanation and you will start by looking for commonalities (will the UFOs only show up when Dave is there, and do they always bathe Dave in blazing pillars of light? You are going to have to have a talk with Dave...).

I have found that, when wondering if a given consequence of an effect/experience/whatever would be effective in modifying the way that you think, a good guideline is to ask if it would be effective on you, personally. If your knee-jerk response wold be 'no' because you are too smart/trust your senses/are too wise/have a reliable memory/are too clever/whatever then it probably won't work on anyone else. Humans are full of interesting complications, we tend to see that in ourselves but have a harder time seeing it in others.

TL;DR - you can get away with a lot... once. Keep exposing someone to the same/similar aberrant experiences and you make that experience almost impossible to ignore.

[Jack_Simth]

Not sure whether this helps, or adds fuel to the fire, but when DM'ing, I always give the victim a Sense Motive check against itself once the Enchantment ends at the normal DC (25 for Charm or Suggestion; 15 for Dominate), with a +2 Circumstance bonus to Sense Motive for each opposed Charisma check made during the duration in the case of Charm (for each order, in the case of Dominate) as a person is going to be familiar with themselves, and better able to detect anything out of character than others. Ironically, the big house-rule there is the delay - nothing prevents a person from making the Sense Motive check against themselves while the Enchantment is still in effect. For repeat use, I'd add a +2 Circumstance for each prior session (that last bit hasn't come up at a table I've run).

So against a random Joe on the street (Commoner/Expert, Wis-10, no ranks in Sense Motive), you can make two opposed Charisma requests safely - the first time - but any more than that and the circumstance bonuses start stacking up and they're increasingly likely to figure it out. That said: Almost anyone 'in power' will have repeatedly encountered folks trying to trick them, and have reasonable modifiers on Sense Motive through practice. Which means the CEO of MegaCorp (who has to constantly watch for folks trying to bamboozle or steal from the corporation via plausible fiction, be that false research opportunities, bad acquisitions, seeming more valuable than they are, embezzling, or whatever) has a pretty good chance of figuring out what went down very quickly. Similar things will apply to anyone in a management or decision-making position, be that private or public sector.

Likewise, if you Charm the receptionist (or other person in the decision-chain) to let you in to meet the CEO (or other type of upper muckity-muck), the CEO has a chance of picking up on "something strange is going on here" when said receptionist arranges for the meeting.

[ben-zayb]

No, it really hasn't. The ability to suppress psionic components was brought up (the weakest element of detection) but you have never tried to address the potential issues with Charm effects themselves, you know, the primary point of contention.

Like what, that the attitude change isn't long term, and the subjects will notice? For the Nth time, DC1 Diplomacy's attitude adjustment keeps an already friendly subject friendly. Stupid? Yes. RAW? Yes. And for the Nth time, too, normally happens even IRL without magical juju.

Not really a houserule, more an ambiguous rule clarification. One that is addressed in most actual table games as well as Pathfinder (aka. D&D 3.75) because the original rule potentially allows Charm Person to be made permanent, undispellable, and [Ex] through the use of a single Diplomacy check, something that is almost universally (with the notable exception of you) considered to be the opposite of RAI. Many 3.5 rules, especially the Diplomacy rules, are anything but straight forward. That you seem unwilling to recognize this as even a possibility says more about you than the rules.

Unfair and imbalanced? Sure. Poorly thought out? Even arguable. Diplomacy the way it was written still is one the banes of 3.5 tables, due to how it trivializes encounters. Ambiguous, however? No, you are seeing what you want to see. I see the letter of the rules. Nothing to clarify in a straight-forward interaction. Sure, Charm + Diplomacy could use some houserules and gentleman's agreement to work, and in fact a pure RAW game would have plenty of imbalances, but that doesn't in any way affect the truth that it's perfectly what's RAW.

[Red Fel]

As I recall his accounting of that incident in his autobiography, the thing with the books was just to give old Ben a pretext for repeatedly telling whats-his-face how very grateful he was. And, while thanking the guy and commending his generosity, Franky laid on the charm thick enough to win him over.

Huh. You know, I clearly missed that part of the story. Yeah, that does change the dynamic. And the lesson.

Oh, I am quite familiar with cognitive dissonance, though your grasp of it seems to be a little fuzzy. Cognitive dissonance describes the stress experienced when someone holds contradictory beliefs, behaviors, ideas, and/or values. Cognitive dissonance is what happens when someone holds two opposing things to be true and can't resolve the issue.

I was admittedly oversimplifying. But you're right. What I was trying to describe was one way the brain responds to cognitive dissonance, not the actual thing itself.

Cognitive dissonance is not a memory editing defense mechanism. What you are describing is closer to the Delirium caused by Werewolves in the Old World of Darkness. The closest thing to what you describe in our reality would be some possible effects of Split-brain syndrome where the left hemisphere can make up plausible explanations for unknown actions taken by the right hemisphere (take a look at the @1:00 mark here for a really good breakdown of the effect).

Admittedly, I didn't so much see it as a "memory editing defense mechanism." What I attempted to present - and clearly didn't succeed at presenting - was a situation in which you could take advantage of the brain's momentary paralysis to insinuate yourself. As Maat Mons pointed out, basically creating an opportunity for a Diplomacy check. In effect, the cognitive dissonance would not brainwash the subject, but make him more susceptible to said influence as the mind goes back and forth between the dissonant positions.

Your explanation for the Benjamin Franklin story is off as well. This is a pretty famous story mentioned in many Psych lectures and such as an effective example of social manipulation, using an effect where making a simple (as in requiring negligible effort) request of someone causes them to like you more (someone asking for your help is a sign that they hold you in higher regard, and we tend to like those who regard us highly), and also straight up flattery (when Benjamin Franklin, one of the most brilliant and well read men of his time, requests access and display of your personal library it is a high compliment, even to a rival, and Franklin was quite vocal about his appreciation, as mentioned by Maat Mons).

This exactly.

While memories can have questionable reliability that would be advantageous in ways that you might want, this is usually due to things like not getting a good enough look/long enough exposure to be sure of their perceptions, the Dunning–Kruger effect (explaining something away because it seems like that thing they saw on Facebook that one time), tribalism (if the *thing* happens within spitting distance of a vilified group/race/whatever then they can blame it on the [BLANK], no more thought required), or even just being tired of dwelling on an odd experience that never happened before and hasn't happened since. None of these are the reliable memory editing options that it seems you hoped cognitive dissonance was.

Again, clearly I did not communicate it well. That said...

I do agree with you that these could be quite effective when used in combination with Charm effects, the first time. I have never even implied otherwise. The problems inherent to the Charm effect (as I see it) stem from repeated use in long-term social engineering. The more someone is exposed to the emotional slam-dance of Charm, the more obvious it becomes that this is not part of their normal human experience, the more their innate pattern recognition abilities come online (humans are sooo good at finding patterns, like this emotional flux always being in the form of intense friendship towards you), and the less justification their memories can provide for this being something other that what it is. If you see a UFO you can hand-wave it away. If you keep seeing UFOs, over and over again (being verified and re-verified by your senses), you have to come up with an actual explanation and you will start by looking for commonalities (will the UFOs only show up when Dave is there, and do they always bathe Dave in blazing pillars of light? You are going to have to have a talk with Dave...).

... this was more of what I was trying to get at, yes. Using Charm effects to create a situation conducive to further social engineering is the goal. The idea is to minimize the use of spells or powers, given that - if you live in a world where these are not the norm (or even if they are, frankly) - more usage will inevitably lead to discovery. The point is to use them to open doors, a nudge here or there rather than a constant push. Pace your usage. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Anyone thinking they will have their abilities always on is basically resolving to become (1) a superhero, (2) a villain (not necessarily super), (3) a hermit or fugitive, or (4) a would-be deity. If your goal is just to get along in life, but better than without class levels, you really don't want to overdo it.

The goal, then, is to use powers and class features to set up situations where your normal aptitudes will enjoy added effect. Thereafter, use those abilities only sporadically, as needed. That's what I was trying to get at - an initial use of a Charm effect to create confusion in the mind sufficient to enable more effective social engineering, without the need for further mechanical intervention. Use your class features as a force multiplier of your normal abilities, not a replacement for them.

[TherianTheorist]

This is an interesting take on the you as a dnd character bit. I wish I'd known about it sooner.

I'm actually pretty torn on class. Knowing pathfinder better. I'd probably reach for something with a lot of utility. But a single level is hard to choose at all.

I'm assume alignment requirements and possibly racial/background requirements can be bent but not broken? At least so far as qualifying for things without a long debate to justify them?

[Troacctid]

I'm assume alignment requirements and possibly racial/background requirements can be bent but not broken? At least so far as qualifying for things without a long debate to justify them?

Correct. We talked about the Otherworldly feat earlier, and I said that you could replace the prerequisite with something like a Heritage feat, for example. Or for Mercantile Background, you could qualify by actually owning your own shop, by having a degree in business, etc. But you couldn't ignore the prerequisite entirely.