I noticed this was changed to last 1 round/level making it more useful, but I suppose it's not exactly meant to be a combat spell.

I guess that changing the spell to change pc's reputation with an NPC might not work too well, but I think it would be a good idea to make it an option to use charm person and similar during scripted quests through dialogue. (I've seen this on CoS)

This way the spell could be used for it's original purpose, rather than just a daze spell with longer duration.

I agree with White Cross, and I think you can take the idea even further and find a way to extend it to PC targets.

I've always wanted to see a PW completely ditch the NWN settings for Charm Person. When a PC fails a save versus Charm Person, I've thought that it might be good to replace the Bioware effects with a server message saying something to the effect of, "You have been Charmed by [caster's name]. How you roleplay this is up to you, but you are encouraged to RP the effect for the duration of the spell."

Yeah, that's kind of open-ended and relies on the target being a good roleplayer -- but in the end, doesn't everything? As a caster, I wouldn't use the spell on a character who wasn't well-played anyhow.

(Obviously, if you took my suggestion, you'd want to increase the duration to PnP standards and get rid of the silly stunning effect NWN has for this spell)

picayune, I think that could be roleplayed well if both players agree, without any enforcement or script changes. Same in a DMed session if the DM so agrees/desire.

But I think changes for the cases it's automated are valid (ie. using it on a non-possessed npc, or a dialogue option during a scripted quest).

I absolutely agree that no enforcement or DM intervention is needed (or appropriate). When I suggest a server message, it is purely for the purpose of alerting the player to two things: (1) they have been Charmed; and (2) the server has modified the spell to reflect PnP behavior and doesn't involve stunning. It would serve no coercive effect.

Because not everyone has Spellcraft, and the visual effect of Charm Person can be confused with other things, a server message (perhaps the kind that also appears in white text over your character's head and floats upward like "You have received a magical sending ...") would be necessary.

I suggest this because when I cast Charm Person on people on CoA a few times, trying to come to an agreement OOC about how it would work was disruptive to RP, and sometimes it also confused onlookers as to what was going on. A system that let everyone understand what was going on would work better -- and everyone would remain free to react as they wished without penalty.

I for one think it's enormously fun to play a character who is under the influence of Charm Person, and I think it would be much more fun if it could be done spontaneously without having to resort to Tells to decide what would happen. It's one of the first spells we all came to know and love when we started playing D&D, and it would be nice to see it work in a less stilted way.

The problem with using charm person (and dominate person) in this way is that D&D was not designed for PvP. It was designed for a group moderated by a DM. It was easy for a DM to run things with small groups. In a persistant world, you'd find the results too difficult to moderate, and it would more than likely create hard feelings between players. Killing PC's is bad enough. trying to force people to play things in certain ways over long periods of time would likely be worse. If we were to change charm person and dominate person in order to encourage people to play their effects when targeted, then I'd predict we'd get a new breed of griefers who try to control others and claim they "have to do what I say." I just think it's a mess I really would rather not deal with.

As far as incorporating it into dialogues of scripts, or allowing it on NPC's in DM quests, I'm all in favor of that, although it might be difficult to determine what dialogues it is appropriate to for quests.

Just to offer an opinion:

I find I'm left very cold when I fire a Dominate Person at someone and successfully Dominate them, only to see them wait, unresponsive, until it wears off and then fire a spell back at me and kill me.

That kind of attitude really stinks, and it's so full of the "My character -must- succeed in being a badass", when really, there's nothing wrong with playing your character as a fool, or doing a demeaning act for a couple of minutes. It shows you're a good sport and have a good sense of role play.

With that said, I don't find it very sporting if you dominate someone and expect them to kill themselves (which I think is one of the things you're not allowed to request of a dominated entity as per PnP).

Charms and Dominates are a good roleplay tool and shouldn't be abused or disregarded just because NWN portrays them as totally ineffective.

What about making Charm Person/Animal/etc temporarily (for a much better duration) change the NPC's faction to independant?

I think it would make sense, since Charm isn't a dazing spell, nor you can command the target to do whatever you want. The target wouldn't attack you and your party, but would attack back if he was attacked (breaking the spell effect), as it was originally meant to be.

Not sure if that's possible, or if the solution is too flawed to implement at all.

I've talked to admins about this and what they've told me is it's just the basic daze spell for the standard duration. However, you can discuss the situation ahead of time with the intended target and if you reach an agreement, the two parties invovled can RP it any way you want.

Of course this situation may result in: "OMG You suck at RP because you didnt RP dominated/charmed! OMG OMG you min/max powergamer!"

I would prefer to lose the daze totally for a spell effect only, so that the PC could actually Do things. Give a *Charmed*/*Dominated* message and leave it up to the Player. If you are dazed, you can't fight for the charmer or do anything beyond walk which kinda sucks.

Fish's suggestion sounds good.

That is definitely how it should work.

Yes, Fish's idea is basically a toned down version of what I'm suggesting -- just less dictatorial. I think it could work perfectly.

If you wanted to complicate this for NPCs, dominate and charm could be written into covnersations too. It's a pain but it can be done with spell hooking.

When the is done resting, check to see how many Charm spells they have prepared. [I know you can check IF it is prepared but I'm not sure on ammount so don't quote me that this bit works.]

Say it's 2

Set the value as a variable on the PC token.

NCharm = 2

Add a "Charm/Dominate (spell depentant)" option to the conversation, which decrements the PC token variable when used.

Pc uses Charm conversation. NCharm decremented. NCharm =1

PC wishes to use the spell Charm, as a spell, not a conversation option. His spellbook shows 2 prepared still, as the conversation cant "disable" or use one (hence the variable). Technically the PC has one charm left.

PC casts charm. A check in the charm script looks to see if the NCharm variable is Greater than 0. if so, the spell script fires (spell is cast) and the variable is decremented.

NCharm = 0 Charms still available in spellbook =1 Charms technically used =2

PC is cheating scum and wishes to cast his other charm because the engine shows that he can. Charm spellscript fires, checks to see if > 0. This time NCharm = 0. Spellscript sends message *spell uses gone* and the spell takes no effect.

Charm would make for some good quest/convo options. Dominate would be interesting. For instance on a quest where you meet an NPC, a persuade/bluff/intimidate/charm/dominate to convince him to come with you/hench for you.

Ladocicea Just to offer an opinion:

I find I'm left very cold when I fire a Dominate Person at someone and successfully Dominate them, only to see them wait, unresponsive, until it wears off and then fire a spell back at me and kill me.

That kind of attitude really stinks, and it's so full of the "My character -must- succeed in being a badass", when really, there's nothing wrong with playing your character as a fool, or doing a demeaning act for a couple of minutes. It shows you're a good sport and have a good sense of role play.

With that said, I don't find it very sporting if you dominate someone and expect them to kill themselves (which I think is one of the things you're not allowed to request of a dominated entity as per PnP).

Charms and Dominates are a good roleplay tool and shouldn't be abused or disregarded just because NWN portrays them as totally ineffective.

The way i always did it was to send a tell to the person FIRST, and then take a screenshot of them agreeing to roleplay it.

Then you can proceed with a safety net.

Fair enough. That is a very much surefire way to do things, but I feel that using tells before major events kills the atmosphere.

I've never used tells to warn people of full damage hits, or anything like that, and I never expect anyone to use tells to warn me of anything.

Besides, I respect people who can spontaneously RP off of a situation that might be adverse to their character's best interests, rather than someone who has to be reasoned with and warned about it or they'll just refuse to play along. That's quite childish really.

I'll play along with anything, and if I think it's utter bullshit, I'll tell the DMs. I don't believe in telling the person that has offended me with their bullshit playing what I think they've done wrong, as it's just really pointless because they'll almost always think they're in the right and you're not, and it makes you look like a condescending bastard that thinks he's better than everyone else.

Ladocicea ...makes you look like a condescending bastard that thinks he's better than everyone else.

...but...

:(

-Cross

OH! Good idea! And taking an extension from the token idea....

How about one of these two ideas?

In the crafting menu everyone has an option for charm:

Option 1. You are stunned and not forced to play along(default) Option 2. You are not stunned, and you will be expected to follow the instructions as apropriate and role play apropriatley. Violent actions such as killing yourself, are usually not possible to command.

Or, how about when the spell is cast a dialouge box comes up on the target(if they fail), and they choose the option then?

This way the "stunned, sits around and kills the caster when it is done" syndrome is resolved and those of us who both want to be charm, and be charmed(sounds fun to me), can.