Stillness of Mind is the monk feature that lets you use an action to end one effect that is causing you to be frightened or charmed. I don't have any questions at all about the former, but the latter does raise some questions. I can't think of any situation in which a charmed character would know they are charmed. Would this class feature allow the monk to automatically realize that something is wrong with them? If yes, that would make the monk immune to charms in social situations, although in combat it would still be useful to charm a monk since they would have to waste a turn to end it. Also, which charm effects would a monk be able to end? If a monk is charmed via a Geas or Dominate Person spell, I don't think the caster would want them to end that charm effect.
I can think of plenty of situations where I have ended up doing things I'd either rather not, or usually wouldn't. Most of them involved members of the other sex! At other times you just don't want to disappoint someone. In most of these situations, you understand what is happening (well, I do) but you go along with the situation regardless.
Charm works on our 'better nature', the monk is just more adept at recognising and resisting that suddenly increased desire to help someone out.
The thing that surprises me is that I have a better nature! :)
Using stillness of mind to end a charmed condition on your character is not "metagaming" it's just "gaming" - that's what the feature does, and it doesn't say it requires the character to have figured out that they are charmed before the player can decide to use it either, so there is no reason to bother which such a restriction, or to give two tiddly-winks about what the character does or doesn't know in the first place (just focus on whether a character could possibly do something, or whether it is literally impossible, and if it isn't literally impossible the DM should mind their own business and let the player do that with their character if they want to - which clearly means letting the player not guess about whether using an action on Stillness of Mind will actually do anything).
I believe that character and player operate on different levels. The character doesn't know he has a power called "Stillness of the Mind", but the player does. When the Player knows their character is Charmed, the Player actives the Power as an action the Character does.
The Role Play of the Action is that the Character realizes they had been charmed/frightened and shrug off the condition.
It's like the Lucky Feat. The Character doesn't know they have the feat, the Player does.
I recently ran up against this in game. I had a Mind Flayer use Dominate Monster against me. I asked to use stillness of mind and was denied on the basis that the spell gives total control to the caster and thus was not allowed to take an "action" contrary to his will. I must say I was not happy about this because my class feature was completely negated and in essence changed the class feature to only apply to the charmed condition -when the caster cannot give you a command-or gives you a command that does not negate you from taking an action of your own choice- which then makes this level 7 class feature very conditional where as written IMHO is very clear cut "Are you charmed? you get this action" To my way of thought a Monk at 7th level has gained such a degree of mental discipline that should a charm spell be successful (failed save etc.) the Monk can still break the caster hold. This still costs the Monk an action which seems a fair price to me.
This is how i would interpret it, The monk's body at that level reaches heightened potential allowing it to expunge such magical effects that disrupts the harmony of the monk's body. It's like your body realizes the brain is not in complete control thus acting it as a "disease" for the lack of better which allows the monk to end such mind manipulation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
So this is purely from my perspective. The way I see it is this. Monks spend as much time meditating and focusing on their natural energy (Ki) and how it flows throughout their systems as they do learning and practicing katas. In so doing they become intensely aware of their own body and the Ki from within; that when a spell or supernatural ability disrupts this balance causing them to either be feared or charmed; they instantly realize that there is a disturbance. This allows them to spend an action so as to use their Ki to correct the imbalance ending the effect. Thus a monk of 7th level or higher literally will always know when this effect has happened. They may not know who cast/used the ability but for all intents and purposes, the monk will at most be effected for a single turn. As to the effects of Geas or Dominate person, the monk would still have the ability to use it as each spell specifically cites itself as using the charming effect.
Well first of all most charm spells have spell components, so if you cast charm person on somebody, everybody around sees or hears you casting a spell. What spell exactly depends on the individual to notice (a farmer wouldn't know the difference of charm person or detect magic since they have no visual effect). As a character you can determine these more easily and if you are effect, you can sense a difference like that creature you never saw before cast a spell and you (out of nowhere) considering them as close friends. Charms do not take away your common sense and magic is known (in most campaigns) so it is reasonable to notice it as such. Now some charm effects outside of spells can be more tricky to notice but in most cases your party members can tell you acting weird and you can act on that since most charms don't make you turn on your party (though some will, like a dominate effect).
In the end it is up to the situation but for me, if it is a spell with spell components, it's not metagaming. If your character doesn't feel different, however, it's hard to say. As a DM, I expect the monk to use this feature and sometimes bring in charms just for the monk to use to keep him/her busy. From a roleplaying perspective, I think somebody as spiritual as a monk would know that something is wrong due to charm effects. Now there are charms that can prevent this like the dominate spells and some more precise charm effects that force a target to do thing on their turn and if worded properly a monk will never be able to use an action on that feature, like "kill everything within 30 ft of you, until nothing is left" and you as the charmer just staying outside of the radius.
In my mind (I know, headcanon isn't canon) a saving throw is an active attempt to resist or evade something. During the saving throw on a charm effect (If there is one) it could be that your Monk is aware that something is going on and tries to hold onto some presence of self. With that awareness they know that something is wrong, if not specifically what, and the stillness of mind is an instinctual reaction like flinching from a blow.
Treating it as a player choice instead of the character's choice is the easy solution. Alternately, you could consider it the monk consciously using their ki to break any such effects, without knowing ahead of time if they are under such effects. In order to do this you would need some trigger, but there is usually something you can use as a trigger, such as allies fighting or a contract/deal of some kind going down. In my experience, it's very rare that an enemy will give a command that will actually prevent such action and commands of that sort usually take long enough that you can figure it out and break it before they finish.
But today a player used the Rod of Rulership on another player that has a monk with the Stillness of Mind actionand that could thus remove the charmed condition.
Google pointed me here.
For what's worth i told the dude that he could not stop the player from using his character's ability no more than he could argue the fighter had no need to draw his shield for combat and thus should be easier to hit or the rogue was not expecting to be hit by a fireball and thus should not be using his evasion.
it's a character ability. Is it metagaming? Sure. But it's not the kind of metagaming that ruins fun. Unless the player's idea of "fun" was to have a bunch of lobotomized player characters as his mindless retinue and thus wanted to play alone. Which was not what we were at the virtual table for.
Railroading is already bad if you are a GM. Doubly so if you're a player.
I think it's a feature where this is a bit of a grey area; it absolutely can be a bit metagamey but it depends on the exact situation.
The Monk isn't simply immune to being charmed, they must actively use an action to end the charmed condition. This is why it offers no protection against effects such as Hypnotic Pattern, or Command, which prevent or force use of actions.
But it's trickier when it comes to effects such as Geas, which can compel the Monk to do something; if the compulsion is well worded, and doesn't give the Monk much wiggle room to suspect that something is wrong then you could argue that they are too busy trying to do as instructed to stop and clear their mind, though I'd probably offer a roll of some kind such as Insight (which most Monks are reasonably good at). However, a compulsion that isn't very specific, such as a general command to "serve me" or the Rod of Rulership you could argue gives the Monk the leeway to act normally, which might include taking a moment to centre themselves and clear the effect.
I definitely don't think that it should be treated as a simple immunity, which is fairly uncommon. For comparison, a Berserker is immune being charmed while Raging, but otherwise to end the effect they must choose to Rage, and I'd argue they may have no reason to do-so if by being charmed they no longer perceive any threats.
Where these features get metagamey is when a player simply decides "this is something I can do, therefore I just do it" without considering whether their character has any reason to do it or not, because in those situations they are playing the mechanics rather than roleplaying the character, and D&D is after all a roleplaying game so character motivations do matter.
To be frank i feel character motivation matter, yes, but this is a social game, so when something like "Serve me!" uttered by a Vampire or the dude with the aforementioned item (or whatever) happen... and the group is at risk...
I honestly prefer that the conflict is resolved in-game even if in a bit of metagame-y way, rather than: • stopping the game and yelling at the player "you did what!? No i am not allowing you to use that on your co-players", • or "Welp. The Vampire charmed you all, and asks you to go wait for him in those chambers and get naked for what he tells you will be something alluring and wonderful, but will... honestly end with the death of you all. This is a total party kill make new characters."
And metagame (honestly) has a bad reputation for the abuse some people do of it, which is for personal enjoyment, not the enjoyment of the group.
D&D is a social game. A game has both metagame elements and in-character elements. You do not ask "how do you use evasion" to a thief when they use it to avoid taking damage. You find it a very nice surprise when the player actually does come up with a decent explanation for it, but you do not expect it.
Same as you do not expect the wizard to explain the exact wording of the verbal components of a spell. You know they are there and they serve a function. If a player introduces them decently and becomes a motif where (s)he does the gestures and stuff and they also use them to sneak in spells when doing other stuff... yeah i congratulate them. But i do not expect every player to do that.
Some things are cool when done by some people, they are forced when done by other people.
It is a social game. It is about socializing. It is not about controlling people and making them do what you want them to do. Therefore if a player is not okay about being charmed, has a way out but does not know how to roleplay it... i'm honestly not going to hold it against that player because he/she/they cannot hold to the standards of grand masters of roleplaying.
It's a game, and the enjoyment comes from many sources. Breaking the enjoyment is what breaks the game.
To be frank i feel character motivation matter, yes, but this is a social game, so when something like "Serve me!" uttered by a Vampire or the dude with the aforementioned item (or whatever) happen... and the group is at risk...
Actually that's an example where there are some fairly easy ways out; because surely if the Monk genuinely wanted to serve the vampire to the best of their ability, then they would centre themselves and clear their mind to focus on the (horrible, horrible) task they've been asked to wait for? It's not about telling players "no", but encouraging them to think why something works narratively.
D&D is a social game. A game has both metagame elements and in-character elements. You do not ask "how do you use evasion" to a thief when they use it to avoid taking damage. You find it a very nice surprise when the player actually does come up with a decent explanation for it, but you do not expect it.
You actually should ask how they use evasion for the narrative purposes; if a dragon's breathing fire in a 90 foot cone with the rogue dead centre in the middle of it then does the rogue lift something as an impromptu shield, flatten themselves to just below the jet of flame, duck under something etc.? You should normally be weaving this kind of stuff into the narrative of what's happening, not just playing it out as "I use my evasion", "Okay, that happens" because why play an RPG at all if you play it like robots?
The question needed though isn't how in this case, it's why; you don't need to ask why a character would use evasion because the answer is always "so I don't burn alive", but asking why a charmed character does something that may go against the spirit of the charm that they are under is absolutely relevant because the entire point of being charmed is that they're no longer thinking as they normally would.
It is a social game. It is about socializing. It is not about controlling people and making them do what you want them to do.
I'm not sure why you think that's what I want? But the feature has mechanics to it, just as the charm effects have mechanics to them, and if you think about it in reverse it'd be no more fun to cast a charm on something and have the enemy just say "yeah not that doing that anymore" a turn later before anything actually happened, especially if the player has a good reason why it shouldn't, "But I'm their friend now, why would they even do that?". Because that's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and have answered.
It's about finding a narrative middle ground, as well as a balance between two sets of opposed mechanics (the one telling a character to do something, and the one by which a character can end it but must choose to do so) as both are equally valid.
There's a similar issue that was being discussed recently in the Barbarian forum about whether enemies would attack a Barbarian just because they used Reckless Attack; mechanically there is no reason an enemy must attack a reckless barbarian, as they're not forced to do so. But narratively enemies should absolutely respond to a barbarian rampaging into their camp by trying to stop them, because enemies don't usually have the total battlefield awareness to know that there may be an easier target sneaking in behind them, because rampaging barbarians are frickin' distracting.
If a player whose character has been charmed can justify how they are doing something while remaining within the spirit of the charm effect, then they should absolutely be allowed to do it, but if the justification is "it says X on my sheet" then that's not roleplaying, so it very much becomes meta-gaming.
How and why are intertwined. If you know how it is done, you usually also know why it is done that way and vice versa if you know why you should do something in a certain way, you also know why. We are not talking about "why should i do this" but "why should i do this very specific thing in this very specific way" to the entanglement of "how" and "why" is already there as part of the rules and the contour conditions of the event being played.
If you know one you automagically know the other.
I don't expect my players to be masters at theatrics, but i don't expect them do be dumb as a rock either.
And i do not think i should be elitist over a game. A game is good because of the story we weave together. That's the roleplay. Looking at the story that comes out and enjoying the time we spend crafting together that story. If we are all okay with how we play the game i do not think we should play how you wish it to be played.
When the party is just formed one of the first things i ask is "you, big tall amazon warrior from the barbarian tribe. Why are you joining forces with this illusionist gnome?" that is how you set up a game, not dilly dallying into "should i? should i not? what is my motive?" and basking in the observation of our belly button. I ask you directly what your motives should be, and from there we start building the story.
Roleplaying is about making choices and keeping your character coherent with itself and weaving a story *together*.
Did the dude surprise me with the use of the Rod of Rulership? Sure. The monk had a way out and we kept playing, freeing the other characters and overthrowing the player that tried to command the group. For the rest of the session. Then i kicked the player out because he was a sore loser and made awful play of the fact that after he threw that curve ball things did not go the way he wanted them to go.
It's one thing to say: "Yeah, okay my character does that." after we have discussed what we should do and how it would play out and it is very vivid in our mind already. It really spoils the game if the dude is acting in real life like an 80s saturday morning villain who got the plans foiled by one thing he did not account for and is trying to force his way. HIs character was contained and given to the authorities. the group is one player less... but to be fair it is playing better.
As i said. Not expecting people to be good leaves pleasant surprises for when people do show up with good reasons why and how. But telling people "you should not do that" and "this is not how you play" are argument that player made which i highly disagree with. It is just the sign of ssomebody who thinks he is better and he should be in command because his views "are objectively better". And... to be fair. At age 43. i find nothing is "objectively better" anymore and anything works... if done the right way.
To be clear, I'm talking about a bunch of different type of charm cases, not just your specific case, which is why I say context matters. With that in mind it's important to remember that the reason why charm effects are so insidious is because they change how a creature behaves, so something that might normally be reasonable for them to simply choose to do is no longer quite so simple; considering why a character does something while charmed is essentially a part of the mechanics.
In the general case, there are three main types of charm effect (and an effect may combine or switch between more than one of these):
Total Control: Certain spells like [Tooltip Not Found] and Command should leave it clear what your character will do (or not do), and in most cases that means you can't use your action for anything other than what the spell specifies, so ending the effect simply isn't a choice that a Monk can make.
Compulsion: Spells like Geas are a bit more freeform, but generally still compel the target to do something which they will then try to do. These are the ones with a bit of wiggle room, as the player must try to decide how they character would go about fulfilling any requests made of them, and should absolutely pay attention to the way in which a command was worded. If they can come up with a clever way to justify why they ended the effect as part of doing as they were told then that should be rewarded, but it needs to make sense within the context of the compulsion, otherwise you're meta-gaming one effect away to get the result you want.
Charm Only: These apply the charmed and maybe rules about how the charmer is perceived, so aside from being unable to attack the caster and more easily persuaded by them, your character is otherwise free to act mostly normally (though they may want to ask their allies why they're attacking their nice and clearly harmless bitey vampire friend). This is essentially what the Rod of Rulership comes under as it doesn't compel a character to do anything other than view the bearer as a trusted ruler, though that does change the nature of what the "ruler" can reasonably command others to do without requiring a roll.
Now, Stillness of Mind is an action, meaning it's something a character must actively seek to do; and if a character's mental state has changed then it's reasonable to ask why they're doing something (just as you should absolutely ask why a lawful good paladin thinks it's okay to impale an innoccent farmer from asscrack to eyesocket on a greatsword), because why a character does something matters, and as a result of the charm effect what it is in character will have changed.
The difficulty is that if your character is not aware that they are charmed, then why would they use Stillness of Mind? If an ally can convince them they might be charmed, or they can roll Insight or such to realise something is strange, or they saw the spell/item being used against them and were aware it did something to them then it's much more reasonable to do this. Without that extra step what you're doing is a purely mechanical decision; if you decide anything purely on the basis of the mechanics of the outcome you want with no consideration of character then that's pretty much the very definition of meta-gaming.
If you look at the Sage Advice from 2016 (under Spellcasting), it's clear that WotC consider that a charm effect is not automatically obvious to someone affected by it, but also consider there to be ways to discover that you are under the influence of a spell or effect, such that you could then do something about it (within the limits of the charm effect, as a well phrased compulsion may prevent it, a Total Control will explicitly prevent it and so-on).
As for your specific case of one player being an ass towards other players; if you want to rule this within RAW then you should ask the Monk to make a skill check (possibly arcana) to determine whether they realised a spell was cast upon them, or ask the players to make opposed insight checks against the "ruler's" persuasion attempts. If that doesn't work then the players can try to circumvent the letter of the rules (the condition "commanded to do something contrary to its nature" to end the effect is 100% usable in this case). If players aren't finding these solutions then it's fine for a DM to just allow a use of Stillness of Mind to break the deadlock, but it is also absolutely 100% metagaming to do that; to be clear, I'm not saying it's wrong I'm saying it's metagaming, because it objectively is.
You are making the case for a "proper" use of the rules. But you are forgetting that... it's a game. The first thing about D&D is that it is a game. If people around the table are not enjoying the game... you might be the most right person in the world who is 100% completely and absolutely right and things should be done like that...
...you will still play alone, either because people kick you out of the game or because they leave your game since it is not fun.
To me, if the player tells me what he does and: • it does not contradict the rules, (like stuff which does charm you but also removes your actions or makes you spend those actions) • it betters the enjoyment of most of the party (excluding people who wanted to ruin the fun for others) • it does not contrast with any specifics of the very particular case. (context sensitivity) then => he can do it.
Fluff is fluff and fluff is nothing. It is called "fluff" for a reason.
If the player can also explain how or why (which, as i said: are usually intertwined and knowing one tells you the other) the character does what the character does then it is even better.
BUT i do not hold it against the player if • the player is neither shakespeare • nor has had a perfectly fine day where the player could daydream about all the stuff the player could do with the character and thus make ultra-detailed descriptions, • and not even if the player is not an improv artist capable of coming up with perfect interpretations and explanations on the spot.
Those traits of the player are welcome extras. But we are playing a game. We are not paid actors like people on those ridiculous online streams that can rehearse their performances, and make sure the rolls come exactly to what they need with the highest pathos potential because of strategic cuts and whatnot or using math that does not stand to even cursory inspection. I don't get paid to play this game. If anything i paid to play this game and keep paying with every book and every subscription.
This is not a job. This is a game among potential future friends who have met online or in real life. If somebody f-s up and it ruins the enjoyment of everybody we can only roll so far with it but at one point it is better to acknowledge that yes, "this happened" and patch it rather than tell people "yeah, no we should totally follow the rules to the bitter end and have everybody leave because they do not like this stuff".
When a dude used a circlet of command along with a belt of sex change (old edition, happened years ago) we ran it until the end of the session then the player was kicked and we decided to run with it by making that player's character as the next BBEG who had completely warped a companion. Player remade her character and we had a new character join the group who had a lead on where the BBEG was going, with the characters finding every now and then similarly heinous acts.
When a different dude used illusions to make people see stuff that was not there... i ran with it until the dude started having the players assassinate each other. Because, yes. okay. It made sense that after what the characters had seen they would totally do it, but we could not ignore that the dude was the only one at the table who was laughing and smiling. he got kicked and we came up with an explanation on the whys and hows later.
When a gal started making a mess which ended up making everybody's life worse due to her meddling and constant lying and bluffing? yeah, we ran with it. Because it was fun, but the moment we saw that at the slightest hint that she did not have a perfect character that would always get her way and that she took offense when people did to her character very minor stuff compared to what she did to our characters... yeah, she was kicked from the group and we continued without her. Why did her character suddenly vanish? Reasons. Did the stuff she do to us still stay behind with all the consequences? absolutely. Like all the examples above.
BUT. If people have a way to patch stuff quickly which ruins the plans of one player or BBEG to the enjoyment of everybody at the table. Then you bet i am totally allowing that player to do what the character can do. I am definitively not going to stop the player from saving a game who is about to be ruined because of a stupid and extremely silly "but what is your motivation?" we are not Hollywood actors getting paid for this who need to show this game to anybody other than ourselves.
If that action saves the game and everybody is congratulating the player i am definitively not going there and telling the player "i do not like how you did it so you cannot do it." That's not just silly it's extremely damaging and grating.
You are making the case for a "proper" use of the rules. But you are forgetting that... it's a game.
The thread is literally about whether or not it's meta-gaming to use Stillness of Mind when a character wouldn't know to do so; well since that would mean using information that the character does not have then it absolutely is. I'm not sure why you find that hard to understand?
Sure it's a game, but games have rules for a reason, and both Stillness of Mind and charm effects have rules that apply in the same situation, so if you're not actively trying to decide how to apply them and just allowing one over the other then that too is meta-gaming, because you're discounting the charm in favour of a different ability simply because you want to.
If that helps the players to have fun, then great, fine, I have not criticised doing it for that reason; but it is still metagaming, and I have pointed out plenty of other ways to overcome charm related issues. If you want to take the easier approach, then again, that's fine, but it is still metagaming rather than working within the rules as they were intended to be played.
If it is tied to a charm effect that gives your character a compulsion towards a goal, like a Suggestion spell telling you to go grab a thing 200 ft away, then you wouldn't be able to break out of the charmed condition, since doing so would be directly contrary to the compulsion you would be under. You can't "do your best to obey" while specifically doing something to get out of the compulsion. You might as well be able to just say "no thanks, I don't want to be charmed" without any ability like stillness of mind.
If it is a more generalized charm like charm person, then it gets tricky. There isn't a reason why they would use Stillness of Mind since they are not aware they are charmed. If I was DMing it, I might have the monk try a wisdom save to recognize that they are charmed before they use their action on stillness of Mind.
But yeah, RAW and RAI, its kind of a pointless ability where charm is concerned. Its sort of like the Berserker's Mindless Rage feature: if they are charmed and told to beat up their allies before they rage, why would they rage in direct contradiction to the compulsion they are under?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Stillness of Mind is the monk feature that lets you use an action to end one effect that is causing you to be frightened or charmed. I don't have any questions at all about the former, but the latter does raise some questions. I can't think of any situation in which a charmed character would know they are charmed. Would this class feature allow the monk to automatically realize that something is wrong with them? If yes, that would make the monk immune to charms in social situations, although in combat it would still be useful to charm a monk since they would have to waste a turn to end it. Also, which charm effects would a monk be able to end? If a monk is charmed via a Geas or Dominate Person spell, I don't think the caster would want them to end that charm effect.
I can think of plenty of situations where I have ended up doing things I'd either rather not, or usually wouldn't. Most of them involved members of the other sex!
At other times you just don't want to disappoint someone.
In most of these situations, you understand what is happening (well, I do) but you go along with the situation regardless.
Charm works on our 'better nature', the monk is just more adept at recognising and resisting that suddenly increased desire to help someone out.
The thing that surprises me is that I have a better nature! :)
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Using stillness of mind to end a charmed condition on your character is not "metagaming" it's just "gaming" - that's what the feature does, and it doesn't say it requires the character to have figured out that they are charmed before the player can decide to use it either, so there is no reason to bother which such a restriction, or to give two tiddly-winks about what the character does or doesn't know in the first place (just focus on whether a character could possibly do something, or whether it is literally impossible, and if it isn't literally impossible the DM should mind their own business and let the player do that with their character if they want to - which clearly means letting the player not guess about whether using an action on Stillness of Mind will actually do anything).
to back up AaronOfBarbaria,
I believe that character and player operate on different levels.
The character doesn't know he has a power called "Stillness of the Mind", but the player does.
When the Player knows their character is Charmed, the Player actives the Power as an action the Character does.
The Role Play of the Action is that the Character realizes they had been charmed/frightened and shrug off the condition.
It's like the Lucky Feat. The Character doesn't know they have the feat, the Player does.
I recently ran up against this in game. I had a Mind Flayer use Dominate Monster against me. I asked to use stillness of mind and was denied on the basis that the spell gives total control to the caster and thus was not allowed to take an "action" contrary to his will. I must say I was not happy about this because my class feature was completely negated and in essence changed the class feature to only apply to the charmed condition -when the caster cannot give you a command-or gives you a command that does not negate you from taking an action of your own choice- which then makes this level 7 class feature very conditional where as written IMHO is very clear cut "Are you charmed? you get this action" To my way of thought a Monk at 7th level has gained such a degree of mental discipline that should a charm spell be successful (failed save etc.) the Monk can still break the caster hold. This still costs the Monk an action which seems a fair price to me.
I tend to think of it as 'the player is declaring that the action is happening, but the character is doing it subconsciously'.
This is how i would interpret it, The monk's body at that level reaches heightened potential allowing it to expunge such magical effects that disrupts the harmony of the monk's body. It's like your body realizes the brain is not in complete control thus acting it as a "disease" for the lack of better which allows the monk to end such mind manipulation.
Born under the watch of something from the furthest corners of the far realms.... It knows all.... it sees all... and it asks: "What is it that you want to see?"... and my answer is... ALL"
So this is purely from my perspective. The way I see it is this. Monks spend as much time meditating and focusing on their natural energy (Ki) and how it flows throughout their systems as they do learning and practicing katas. In so doing they become intensely aware of their own body and the Ki from within; that when a spell or supernatural ability disrupts this balance causing them to either be feared or charmed; they instantly realize that there is a disturbance. This allows them to spend an action so as to use their Ki to correct the imbalance ending the effect. Thus a monk of 7th level or higher literally will always know when this effect has happened. They may not know who cast/used the ability but for all intents and purposes, the monk will at most be effected for a single turn. As to the effects of Geas or Dominate person, the monk would still have the ability to use it as each spell specifically cites itself as using the charming effect.
Well first of all most charm spells have spell components, so if you cast charm person on somebody, everybody around sees or hears you casting a spell. What spell exactly depends on the individual to notice (a farmer wouldn't know the difference of charm person or detect magic since they have no visual effect). As a character you can determine these more easily and if you are effect, you can sense a difference like that creature you never saw before cast a spell and you (out of nowhere) considering them as close friends. Charms do not take away your common sense and magic is known (in most campaigns) so it is reasonable to notice it as such. Now some charm effects outside of spells can be more tricky to notice but in most cases your party members can tell you acting weird and you can act on that since most charms don't make you turn on your party (though some will, like a dominate effect).
In the end it is up to the situation but for me, if it is a spell with spell components, it's not metagaming. If your character doesn't feel different, however, it's hard to say. As a DM, I expect the monk to use this feature and sometimes bring in charms just for the monk to use to keep him/her busy. From a roleplaying perspective, I think somebody as spiritual as a monk would know that something is wrong due to charm effects. Now there are charms that can prevent this like the dominate spells and some more precise charm effects that force a target to do thing on their turn and if worded properly a monk will never be able to use an action on that feature, like "kill everything within 30 ft of you, until nothing is left" and you as the charmer just staying outside of the radius.
In my mind (I know, headcanon isn't canon) a saving throw is an active attempt to resist or evade something. During the saving throw on a charm effect (If there is one) it could be that your Monk is aware that something is going on and tries to hold onto some presence of self. With that awareness they know that something is wrong, if not specifically what, and the stillness of mind is an instinctual reaction like flinching from a blow.
Treating it as a player choice instead of the character's choice is the easy solution. Alternately, you could consider it the monk consciously using their ki to break any such effects, without knowing ahead of time if they are under such effects. In order to do this you would need some trigger, but there is usually something you can use as a trigger, such as allies fighting or a contract/deal of some kind going down. In my experience, it's very rare that an enemy will give a command that will actually prevent such action and commands of that sort usually take long enough that you can figure it out and break it before they finish.
Hmmm... using necromancy here on this thread.
But today a player used the Rod of Rulership on another player that has a monk with the Stillness of Mind actionand that could thus remove the charmed condition.
Google pointed me here.
For what's worth i told the dude that he could not stop the player from using his character's ability no more than he could argue the fighter had no need to draw his shield for combat and thus should be easier to hit or the rogue was not expecting to be hit by a fireball and thus should not be using his evasion.
it's a character ability. Is it metagaming? Sure. But it's not the kind of metagaming that ruins fun. Unless the player's idea of "fun" was to have a bunch of lobotomized player characters as his mindless retinue and thus wanted to play alone. Which was not what we were at the virtual table for.
Railroading is already bad if you are a GM. Doubly so if you're a player.
I think it's a feature where this is a bit of a grey area; it absolutely can be a bit metagamey but it depends on the exact situation.
The Monk isn't simply immune to being charmed, they must actively use an action to end the charmed condition. This is why it offers no protection against effects such as Hypnotic Pattern, or Command, which prevent or force use of actions.
But it's trickier when it comes to effects such as Geas, which can compel the Monk to do something; if the compulsion is well worded, and doesn't give the Monk much wiggle room to suspect that something is wrong then you could argue that they are too busy trying to do as instructed to stop and clear their mind, though I'd probably offer a roll of some kind such as Insight (which most Monks are reasonably good at). However, a compulsion that isn't very specific, such as a general command to "serve me" or the Rod of Rulership you could argue gives the Monk the leeway to act normally, which might include taking a moment to centre themselves and clear the effect.
I definitely don't think that it should be treated as a simple immunity, which is fairly uncommon. For comparison, a Berserker is immune being charmed while Raging, but otherwise to end the effect they must choose to Rage, and I'd argue they may have no reason to do-so if by being charmed they no longer perceive any threats.
Where these features get metagamey is when a player simply decides "this is something I can do, therefore I just do it" without considering whether their character has any reason to do it or not, because in those situations they are playing the mechanics rather than roleplaying the character, and D&D is after all a roleplaying game so character motivations do matter.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
To be frank i feel character motivation matter, yes, but this is a social game, so when something like "Serve me!" uttered by a Vampire or the dude with the aforementioned item (or whatever) happen... and the group is at risk...
I honestly prefer that the conflict is resolved in-game even if in a bit of metagame-y way, rather than:
• stopping the game and yelling at the player "you did what!? No i am not allowing you to use that on your co-players",
• or "Welp. The Vampire charmed you all, and asks you to go wait for him in those chambers and get naked for what he tells you will be something alluring and wonderful, but will... honestly end with the death of you all. This is a total party kill make new characters."
And metagame (honestly) has a bad reputation for the abuse some people do of it, which is for personal enjoyment, not the enjoyment of the group.
D&D is a social game. A game has both metagame elements and in-character elements. You do not ask "how do you use evasion" to a thief when they use it to avoid taking damage. You find it a very nice surprise when the player actually does come up with a decent explanation for it, but you do not expect it.
Same as you do not expect the wizard to explain the exact wording of the verbal components of a spell. You know they are there and they serve a function. If a player introduces them decently and becomes a motif where (s)he does the gestures and stuff and they also use them to sneak in spells when doing other stuff... yeah i congratulate them. But i do not expect every player to do that.
Some things are cool when done by some people, they are forced when done by other people.
It is a social game. It is about socializing. It is not about controlling people and making them do what you want them to do. Therefore if a player is not okay about being charmed, has a way out but does not know how to roleplay it... i'm honestly not going to hold it against that player because he/she/they cannot hold to the standards of grand masters of roleplaying.
It's a game, and the enjoyment comes from many sources. Breaking the enjoyment is what breaks the game.
Actually that's an example where there are some fairly easy ways out; because surely if the Monk genuinely wanted to serve the vampire to the best of their ability, then they would centre themselves and clear their mind to focus on the (horrible, horrible) task they've been asked to wait for? It's not about telling players "no", but encouraging them to think why something works narratively.
I'm not sure why you think that's what I want? But the feature has mechanics to it, just as the charm effects have mechanics to them, and if you think about it in reverse it'd be no more fun to cast a charm on something and have the enemy just say "yeah not that doing that anymore" a turn later before anything actually happened, especially if the player has a good reason why it shouldn't, "But I'm their friend now, why would they even do that?". Because that's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and have answered.
It's about finding a narrative middle ground, as well as a balance between two sets of opposed mechanics (the one telling a character to do something, and the one by which a character can end it but must choose to do so) as both are equally valid.
There's a similar issue that was being discussed recently in the Barbarian forum about whether enemies would attack a Barbarian just because they used Reckless Attack; mechanically there is no reason an enemy must attack a reckless barbarian, as they're not forced to do so. But narratively enemies should absolutely respond to a barbarian rampaging into their camp by trying to stop them, because enemies don't usually have the total battlefield awareness to know that there may be an easier target sneaking in behind them, because rampaging barbarians are frickin' distracting.
If a player whose character has been charmed can justify how they are doing something while remaining within the spirit of the charm effect, then they should absolutely be allowed to do it, but if the justification is "it says X on my sheet" then that's not roleplaying, so it very much becomes meta-gaming.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
How and why are intertwined. If you know how it is done, you usually also know why it is done that way and vice versa if you know why you should do something in a certain way, you also know why. We are not talking about "why should i do this" but "why should i do this very specific thing in this very specific way" to the entanglement of "how" and "why" is already there as part of the rules and the contour conditions of the event being played.
If you know one you automagically know the other.
I don't expect my players to be masters at theatrics, but i don't expect them do be dumb as a rock either.
And i do not think i should be elitist over a game. A game is good because of the story we weave together. That's the roleplay. Looking at the story that comes out and enjoying the time we spend crafting together that story. If we are all okay with how we play the game i do not think we should play how you wish it to be played.
When the party is just formed one of the first things i ask is "you, big tall amazon warrior from the barbarian tribe. Why are you joining forces with this illusionist gnome?" that is how you set up a game, not dilly dallying into "should i? should i not? what is my motive?" and basking in the observation of our belly button. I ask you directly what your motives should be, and from there we start building the story.
Roleplaying is about making choices and keeping your character coherent with itself and weaving a story *together*.
Did the dude surprise me with the use of the Rod of Rulership? Sure. The monk had a way out and we kept playing, freeing the other characters and overthrowing the player that tried to command the group. For the rest of the session. Then i kicked the player out because he was a sore loser and made awful play of the fact that after he threw that curve ball things did not go the way he wanted them to go.
It's one thing to say: "Yeah, okay my character does that." after we have discussed what we should do and how it would play out and it is very vivid in our mind already. It really spoils the game if the dude is acting in real life like an 80s saturday morning villain who got the plans foiled by one thing he did not account for and is trying to force his way. HIs character was contained and given to the authorities. the group is one player less... but to be fair it is playing better.
As i said. Not expecting people to be good leaves pleasant surprises for when people do show up with good reasons why and how. But telling people "you should not do that" and "this is not how you play" are argument that player made which i highly disagree with. It is just the sign of ssomebody who thinks he is better and he should be in command because his views "are objectively better". And... to be fair. At age 43. i find nothing is "objectively better" anymore and anything works... if done the right way.
To be clear, I'm talking about a bunch of different type of charm cases, not just your specific case, which is why I say context matters. With that in mind it's important to remember that the reason why charm effects are so insidious is because they change how a creature behaves, so something that might normally be reasonable for them to simply choose to do is no longer quite so simple; considering why a character does something while charmed is essentially a part of the mechanics.
In the general case, there are three main types of charm effect (and an effect may combine or switch between more than one of these):
Now, Stillness of Mind is an action, meaning it's something a character must actively seek to do; and if a character's mental state has changed then it's reasonable to ask why they're doing something (just as you should absolutely ask why a lawful good paladin thinks it's okay to impale an innoccent farmer from asscrack to eyesocket on a greatsword), because why a character does something matters, and as a result of the charm effect what it is in character will have changed.
The difficulty is that if your character is not aware that they are charmed, then why would they use Stillness of Mind? If an ally can convince them they might be charmed, or they can roll Insight or such to realise something is strange, or they saw the spell/item being used against them and were aware it did something to them then it's much more reasonable to do this. Without that extra step what you're doing is a purely mechanical decision; if you decide anything purely on the basis of the mechanics of the outcome you want with no consideration of character then that's pretty much the very definition of meta-gaming.
If you look at the Sage Advice from 2016 (under Spellcasting), it's clear that WotC consider that a charm effect is not automatically obvious to someone affected by it, but also consider there to be ways to discover that you are under the influence of a spell or effect, such that you could then do something about it (within the limits of the charm effect, as a well phrased compulsion may prevent it, a Total Control will explicitly prevent it and so-on).
As for your specific case of one player being an ass towards other players; if you want to rule this within RAW then you should ask the Monk to make a skill check (possibly arcana) to determine whether they realised a spell was cast upon them, or ask the players to make opposed insight checks against the "ruler's" persuasion attempts. If that doesn't work then the players can try to circumvent the letter of the rules (the condition "commanded to do something contrary to its nature" to end the effect is 100% usable in this case). If players aren't finding these solutions then it's fine for a DM to just allow a use of Stillness of Mind to break the deadlock, but it is also absolutely 100% metagaming to do that; to be clear, I'm not saying it's wrong I'm saying it's metagaming, because it objectively is.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
You are making the case for a "proper" use of the rules. But you are forgetting that... it's a game. The first thing about D&D is that it is a game. If people around the table are not enjoying the game... you might be the most right person in the world who is 100% completely and absolutely right and things should be done like that...
...you will still play alone, either because people kick you out of the game or because they leave your game since it is not fun.
To me, if the player tells me what he does and:
• it does not contradict the rules, (like stuff which does charm you but also removes your actions or makes you spend those actions)
• it betters the enjoyment of most of the party (excluding people who wanted to ruin the fun for others)
• it does not contrast with any specifics of the very particular case. (context sensitivity)
then => he can do it.
Fluff is fluff and fluff is nothing. It is called "fluff" for a reason.
If the player can also explain how or why (which, as i said: are usually intertwined and knowing one tells you the other) the character does what the character does then it is even better.
BUT i do not hold it against the player if
• the player is neither shakespeare
• nor has had a perfectly fine day where the player could daydream about all the stuff the player could do with the character and thus make ultra-detailed descriptions,
• and not even if the player is not an improv artist capable of coming up with perfect interpretations and explanations on the spot.
Those traits of the player are welcome extras. But we are playing a game. We are not paid actors like people on those ridiculous online streams that can rehearse their performances, and make sure the rolls come exactly to what they need with the highest pathos potential because of strategic cuts and whatnot or using math that does not stand to even cursory inspection. I don't get paid to play this game. If anything i paid to play this game and keep paying with every book and every subscription.
This is not a job. This is a game among potential future friends who have met online or in real life. If somebody f-s up and it ruins the enjoyment of everybody we can only roll so far with it but at one point it is better to acknowledge that yes, "this happened" and patch it rather than tell people "yeah, no we should totally follow the rules to the bitter end and have everybody leave because they do not like this stuff".
When a dude used a circlet of command along with a belt of sex change (old edition, happened years ago) we ran it until the end of the session then the player was kicked and we decided to run with it by making that player's character as the next BBEG who had completely warped a companion. Player remade her character and we had a new character join the group who had a lead on where the BBEG was going, with the characters finding every now and then similarly heinous acts.
When a different dude used illusions to make people see stuff that was not there... i ran with it until the dude started having the players assassinate each other. Because, yes. okay. It made sense that after what the characters had seen they would totally do it, but we could not ignore that the dude was the only one at the table who was laughing and smiling. he got kicked and we came up with an explanation on the whys and hows later.
When a gal started making a mess which ended up making everybody's life worse due to her meddling and constant lying and bluffing? yeah, we ran with it. Because it was fun, but the moment we saw that at the slightest hint that she did not have a perfect character that would always get her way and that she took offense when people did to her character very minor stuff compared to what she did to our characters... yeah, she was kicked from the group and we continued without her. Why did her character suddenly vanish? Reasons. Did the stuff she do to us still stay behind with all the consequences? absolutely. Like all the examples above.
BUT. If people have a way to patch stuff quickly which ruins the plans of one player or BBEG to the enjoyment of everybody at the table. Then you bet i am totally allowing that player to do what the character can do. I am definitively not going to stop the player from saving a game who is about to be ruined because of a stupid and extremely silly "but what is your motivation?" we are not Hollywood actors getting paid for this who need to show this game to anybody other than ourselves.
If that action saves the game and everybody is congratulating the player i am definitively not going there and telling the player "i do not like how you did it so you cannot do it." That's not just silly it's extremely damaging and grating.
The thread is literally about whether or not it's meta-gaming to use Stillness of Mind when a character wouldn't know to do so; well since that would mean using information that the character does not have then it absolutely is. I'm not sure why you find that hard to understand?
Sure it's a game, but games have rules for a reason, and both Stillness of Mind and charm effects have rules that apply in the same situation, so if you're not actively trying to decide how to apply them and just allowing one over the other then that too is meta-gaming, because you're discounting the charm in favour of a different ability simply because you want to.
If that helps the players to have fun, then great, fine, I have not criticised doing it for that reason; but it is still metagaming, and I have pointed out plenty of other ways to overcome charm related issues. If you want to take the easier approach, then again, that's fine, but it is still metagaming rather than working within the rules as they were intended to be played.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
If it is tied to a charm effect that gives your character a compulsion towards a goal, like a Suggestion spell telling you to go grab a thing 200 ft away, then you wouldn't be able to break out of the charmed condition, since doing so would be directly contrary to the compulsion you would be under. You can't "do your best to obey" while specifically doing something to get out of the compulsion. You might as well be able to just say "no thanks, I don't want to be charmed" without any ability like stillness of mind.
If it is a more generalized charm like charm person, then it gets tricky. There isn't a reason why they would use Stillness of Mind since they are not aware they are charmed. If I was DMing it, I might have the monk try a wisdom save to recognize that they are charmed before they use their action on stillness of Mind.
But yeah, RAW and RAI, its kind of a pointless ability where charm is concerned. Its sort of like the Berserker's Mindless Rage feature: if they are charmed and told to beat up their allies before they rage, why would they rage in direct contradiction to the compulsion they are under?