If the target were aware that they were charmed then it would say so; other charm spells explicitly mention this. [spell]Charm Person[/skill] for example specifically says that you become aware when the spell ends.
That is directly backward; those spells tell you when a target is unaware of the spell during its effects. They are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule to judge by.
It doesn't say you're unaware during the effects, it says you become aware as a result of the spell ending. Without that explicit awareness it's clear you wouldn't necessarily realise anything had happened, though that may depend upon what you were actually made to do exactly; if someone you don't like compelled you to get them a drink then you might just shake that off as a lapse in judgement, rather than suspecting foul play, but if they had you do jumping jacks for an hour then you'd wonder why you did that, and could reasonably suspect foul play. But with the explicit awareness you always know.
While the spell perceptibility issue doesn't necessarily apply to monster abilities, consider that this is basically the entirety of the charm effect for a succubus (the rest is the setup and how it ends):
The charmed target obeys the fiend's verbal or telepathic commands.
Yet conventional wisdom will usually be that while charmed by a succubus a character should want to do as the succubus says; they're not inwardly screaming "why am I doing this" they're completely and utterly devoted to the succubus until the effect ends, or something happens to make them aware of it. That's how every DM or player I've seen affected by it plays it, including Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford during Acquisitions Incorporated (though it's admittedly not the most canon source despite Omin Dran being confirmed as a lord of waterdeep in the Death Masks book).
This isn't even really something specific to succubi, but a lot of monsters that can charm like vampires etc., so I see no reason to assume charm spells should be any different; any perceptive change is accepted as reality, there may be some wiggle room for questioning but outright awareness would go against the point of being charmed, it may as well just be puppeteering instead, though that raises some interesting ideas for a high level "charm" spell (that doesn't use the charmed condition).
Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.
A sudden compulsion to follow an order or a random change in opinion of someone to thinking they are your best friend is pretty perceptible. It certainly isn't subtle the way reading someone's thoughts without causing any change is subtle.
If everyone that got charmed was immediately automatically aware of that fact then most charm effects would be basically pointless, as you could just use whatever leeway you have to yell "someone charmed me, go and get help!" or otherwise make a scene until someone notices. Either that or it would require every charmer to be absurdly specific in their commands every single time in order to give you no leeway whatsoever except to maintian basic bodily functions. That interpretation would render Geas useless as a spell because low level NPCs would just refuse and die in response to every command (as they don't know they'll take damage until the first time it happens), and higher level characters would just choose to take the damage and then punch the caster in the face until they die.
The point of a charm is that it's changing your perceptions; an enemy is now a friend, so what? You might wonder why you were ever enemies, and might even remember why, but you'd just rationalise it away unless there's something majorly and specifically amiss (hence the need to test for awareness). Maybe you forgave them? Maybe they turned over a new leaf? Maybe you were in the wrong for doubting them and actually you were the villain?
It would however be absolutely perceptible to your friends; or at least it should be, assuming any of them pay enough attention to know when you're acting strangely. Though again, depends on the exact circumstances; if someone who isn't an enemy compels a player to report on the party's acitivities, then if none of the party witnessed that happen, they might just see the player occassionally writing a letter might think nothing of it until the player suddenly snaps out of it said "I just spent the last 30 days reporting on all of our activities to some guy from the pub. Why would I even do that, and why didn't any of you stop me?".
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It doesn't say you're unaware during the effects, it says you become aware as a result of the spell ending.
You cannot become aware if you were already aware. The text asserts that you are not aware of the spell's effects while the spell is active.
And since only 2 spells clarify that awareness is gained after the spell releases, the simplest assumption is that people know they are charmed or otherwise mind controlled during other spells.
If everyone that got charmed was immediately automatically aware of that fact then most charm effects would be basically pointless, as you could just use whatever leeway you have to yell "someone charmed me, go and get help!" or otherwise make a scene until someone notices.
That wouldn't make charm effects pointless. For instance, would it really matter if you call out "Im not in control!" as you suddenly start wailing on your allies? No, its not some grand secret they won't put together given 2 more seconds of thought. (if your character starts attacking their allies, its kind of hard to hide that they are enchanted from them either).
And the spells that compel you towards a goal wouldn't really allow you to specifically scream out something to undermine the goal you are compelled to.
The point of a charm is that it's changing your perceptions
And for the few mind altering spells that use the charm condition in that way, its spelled out that the victim is unaware and friendly towards you (charm person, friends).
But for others like Dominate Person, there is no text about a change of perception in the target's mind. Instead, they are controlled and aware of it, but largely unable to do anything about it.
I'm still Reading Through. But I just want to point out two things.
1st. Many Charm spells state that the person that is under the effects of it knows they are charmed. People tend to argue far to heavily in the favor of spells effects not being noticeable because they have an active interest in various opponents and npc's not being able to break out of their spells or notice a spell being cast for various nefarious purposes. So they argue heavily under a twisted rule to make everything as subtle as possible. But nowhere in the short rule about subtlety on spells and spell like effects state that being under an effect of a spell does NOT make you aware that your affected when the spell does not specifically state that. A small handful of spells and special abilities do actually create that condition of not knowing. It's supposed to be one of the major strengths for those spells and abilities by having that wording.
2nd. Many people like to interpret the fact that use of an action is involved that it is something active. But it is not necessarily. Dodge takes an action but it's not entirely active for example. It is more reactive despite not requiring your reaction in some way but requires more of your action economy to use it. It's you doing your best to avoid all blows but it's important to realize that if you use it and nobody attacks. All you've really done is move and wait for the most part, perhaps with story flavor about doing it in a readied pose. This is important because once you realize that some abilities are useful not so much necessarily because your being real active about them but simply because your not being particularly active through other Actions that you could take. That some abilities like Defense and the action to clear your mind through an ability like Stillness of Mind are important because they aren't so much about being active themselves but rather how your spending your time between moments of activity. Readying an Action is another example of basically using part of your action economy not to actually be directly active but more reactive as well, though it does ultimately require your reaction.
So while your moving under compulsion to go get an item 200 feet away. If the instructions don't somehow involve using up your action to do that. That means you technically have actions free for things like Stillness of Mind and the Defense action and many others. And it might be quite fitting to actually use them depending on what is going on. Or perhaps in absence of having something else to do. If a Monk is Dominated and told to wait or whatever else and they aren't actively required to use their action, It's time and effort that can easily be turned inward. And thanks to the fact that the ability doesn't in any way say that any actual knowledge or awareness on behalf of the character is involved. There's nothing to stop you from doing it. It's also not meta-gaming in the way that most people are complaining about when they use that term.
The text asserts that you are not aware of the spell's effects while the spell is active.
No it doesn't. It says:
The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance. When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you.
Regarding it as a friendly acquaintance doesn't imply that you aren't aware you regarded it differently in the past, that implication comes from the fact that your perception of the creature was changed; people typically are not aware of their own behavioural changes, you need other people who know you to notice them and realise that something is amiss.
And since only 2 spells clarify that awareness is gained after the spell releases, the simplest assumption is that people know they are charmed or otherwise mind controlled during other spells.
That's not the simplest assumption; spells need to be perciptible to be perceived. Charm spells typically only have vocal components, some have somatic components, but unless these are obvious (and observed) you have no reason to assume you are aware a spell is being cast upon you, nor are the effects going to be obvious to the target during the spell, though they may be obvious to those who know them.
The fact that only some spells specify awareness when they end makes it clear that targets normally are not aware they were charmed at all, and that one of the balancing features of these lower level spells is that the target always knows they were charmed.
That wouldn't make charm effects pointless. For instance, would it really matter if you call out "Im not in control!" as you suddenly start wailing on your allies? No, its not some grand secret they won't put together given 2 more seconds of thought. (if your character starts attacking their allies, its kind of hard to hide that they are enchanted from them either).
You're assuming commands involving obvious control, but that's not all that charm spells are for; you could just as easily charm an NPC into leading you inside a secure location and telling the guards that you're meant to be there. That isn't going to work if the NPC is screaming "I'VE BEEN CHARMED KILL THESE INTRUDERS" the entire time now, is it?
While you could argue a command can be made to override such behaviour, how specific are you willing to get? If you only tell the NPC to tell the guards you're supposed to be there, that doesn't stop them from saying more, or use a phrase that indicates they are under duress. Are you going to specify that must look calm rather than panicked and sweaty? How much are you willing to specify to overcome the fact that the NPC is entirely aware that they are charmed, and can you fit that into the time constraints of casting the spell?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So they argue heavily under a twisted rule to make everything as subtle as possible. But nowhere in the short rule about subtlety on spells and spell like effects state that being under an effect of a spell does NOT make you aware that your affected when the spell does not specifically state that.
The rule on subtlety is literally the rule on how that works, it's not twisted in any way. Spells either have obviously perceptible effects or they don't; but charm spells are typically vocal and sometimes also somatic, they usually don't describe any further visual, audible or whatever effect unlike most easily perceptible spells that describe glowing motes, spectral hands etc. So the only way that such spells can be perceived is if you see a somatic component or recongise a verbal component, which would require an arcana check at least, unless it's an ability that enemies have used against you before.
The only other way they can be perceived is by others who recognise you are behaving strangely, or yourself once the spell ends and wonder why you did what you did. There is no reason to assume that targets are inwardly screaming the entire time, painfully aware of what it is happening to them, because if that were the case then the spell would say so.
And it's nothing to do with nefariousness; most charm spells would become significantly less useful if the target always knows they are charmed while the spell is active. Spells like Suggestion aren't an exception, the difference is that because the target thinks it was following an idea of its own, then it won't seem strange to it afterwards, so they're even less likely to know they were affected.
For normal charm effects you do as you are compelled, but depending upon what that is you may or may not find it strange when it wears off; i.e- if you did something that was totally out of character, or worked against your own interests, then you might suspect you were charmed, but it will depend a lot on what you actually did.
Many people like to interpret the fact that use of an action is involved that it is something active. But it is not necessarily. Dodge takes an action but it's not entirely active for example. It is more reactive despite not requiring your reaction in some way but requires more of your action economy to use it.
Dodging is an active ability; you are choosing to stop attacking (or attack less if you're a Monk) in order to focus on defense. That could mean ducking, weaving, zig-zagging as you move etc. beyond what you would normally do to defend yourself. You are actively doing more to protect yourself and evade harm. There's always a slight disconnect between action economy and what's happening narratively because of the turn structure (characters don't actually move instantaneously then stand still like a post while enemies take turns to wail on them).
An easy way to think of it as changing stance from aggressive to defensive; instead of punching away you are blocking, or you've got your guard up etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Okay, but specific beats general every time. Why would the Monk even be given a feature if they were never able to use it? It doesn't say "You can use your action to remove one charm effect if you're aware of it." It says that you can just end one effect.
They don't need to, to remove one charm effect you need to be aware of which one you want to end. Just as you don't cure someone of poison unless you suspect they're poisoned, and don't heal someone unless you know they're wounded etc.
And it doesn't mean they are "never able to use it" as I've gone over several times; any character can potentially become aware they might be charmed, all they have to do is ask for an insight or arcana check when something strange occurs as a result of the spell, e.g- doing something that your character would never have done before, former friends are telling you to snap out of it etc. If you succeed then you become aware you might be charmed, and can try to do something about it.
The advantage of having Stillness of Mind (or Mindless Rage for a Berserker) is that you actually have something you can do about it once that happens. Casters can also potentially end it, but they would need to know (and prepare) Dispel Magic (only works on spells) or Greater Restoration.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Are we saying that if an enemy Mage uses Dominate Person on a Monk and succeeds then the Monk can just end the effect on themselves?
I would argue they cannot as it explicitly says you can only take actions that the caster of the spell allows so in this case they would not be able to use their action to dismiss the effect.
So does Command with less of a cost, or Hold Person with a chance to do multiple rounds; being able to end charm at will with no consideration of what the charm is doing invalidates nearly all higher level charm spells entirely.
Only you care about that, the rest of the people here acknowledge that there are many ways in which a monk's ability can be bypassed.
And that you should not waste charm spells on monks, unless they stop the monks from taking action.
Period.
What's the point. Seriously?
Do you really need your players to be marionettes?! No, i'm asking seriously, because all this angst against the monk being unable to be effectively charmed by long term spells is just...
...who cares?
Who is going to use a long term charm spell on a player?!?!
Can we all stop babbling for a moment? Because i started my reply that resurrected this thread from the dead, saying that the entire debacle started when a player tried to charm another player.
WHICH IS ALREADY BAD.
And people here are seriously complaining about bad guys being unable to do so on players? Seriously?
I mean if you have an evil monk and you need to mind control him in some way, make it a cursed item and attach it to his forehead like Goku from journey to the west, but the player needs to be okay with it.
I seriously do not understand why everybody is trying to defend long term mental manipulation on characters owned by the players. Or even villain NPCs.
No seriously, this has gone on long enough. I can understand the philosophical discussion, but once we agree to disagree this should be over.
This has been going on for an entire week with people saying "you "should"/"should not" be aware of the charme" yeah okay.
Even if.
Why?
Because, once again, i started this whole thing by saying "yeah a d***head tried to win at D&D and take control of other player character actions".
Charmes are inherently the kind of spell that takes away the player's ability to act on the player's terms.
And we have already established with multiple examples how by charming a monk in combat you at the very minimum take said monk out of the fight for at least one round. Which, allow me to say, is already a big, huge, eternity of helplessness Especially on important fights and especially if the monk gets attacked by the rest of the charmed party but cannot slap some sense into them because he has to keep using his actions to get out of charme, it's not like a monk is famous for having high defenses of any kind.
So... you know.
Why is it important that you can keep the monk charmed on the long term outside of combat?
No seriously.
I would like to know at this point because it's been a week of constant bickering here about "lore" this or "RaW" that or "RaI" tit for tat.
I feel like everybody has lost the entire focus of the question and why it happens that the monk is charmed.
Why does a Player or GM for any whatsoever VALID reason have to charm the monk player character and/or any player character long term?
Because in my book that's like high levels of rail roading.
Something that should be agreed upon out of character.
Not something that should be like... defended ...in any reason or capacity.
So, yeah. Why does anybody have the need as a GM or a player to keep a f-ing monk charmed long term? Please answer me this question with valid reasons.
Right now the only reasons i can think of are better resolved out of game such as: • it's an adventure hook (think suicide squad) in which case the monk could be fitted with a special item that has the same effects instead of being charmed. Like Goku in journey to the west. • a player wants to control an NPC opponent that opposing monk is dead, once the NPC baddie wastes his turn to get rid of the charme... everybody will have had its entire round to dish damage on the squishy monk, and then another round after that before the monk can start acting again. • an unexpected foe wants to control the party. Well, now i feel sorry for the monk because the monk does not exist in a vacuum and unless said monk is not the only one to have broken free of the charme.... yeah, things are going to get funky for the monk. Monks tend to be glass cannons compared to stuff like fighters, barbarians and moon druids who are melee happy, and being unable to dish as much damage as your average rogue (that shares the "glass cannony" aspect)... yeah. It's going to die badly. • the GM is a rail roader and likes to have quest givers to cast geas or whatever. In which case... yeah bye. Not going to play with you, unless it was something i was warned about and i pre-agreed with before we started the adventure. At which point, yeah, i'll just not use the ability or we could do (as suggested) checks to see if my character can know, but by now it falls into the "adventure hook" category. • a player wants to control everybody. Kick immediately the player out of the game at the end of the session, let the monk save the party mid-session.
Are we saying that if an enemy Mage uses Dominate Person on a Monk and succeeds then the Monk can just end the effect on themselves?
I would argue they cannot as it explicitly says you can only take actions that the caster of the spell allows so in this case they would not be able to use their action to dismiss the effect.
Only if they have the opportunity to do-so; if Dominate Monster is causing the Monk's action to be overridden then they have no choice.
But the player could still push for insight checks or such so that they're ready for any turn in which their action isn't being chosen for them (as the caster has to sacrifice their own action in order to do that, so may either choose not to, or may be unable to).
So does Command with less of a cost, or Hold Person with a chance to do multiple rounds; being able to end charm at will with no consideration of what the charm is doing invalidates nearly all higher level charm spells entirely.
I'm not the one who raised Rod of Rulership, you did; I have never had that item or had that item used in any campaign within which I've played. Instead of inventing arguments that I have not made, try reading what I have actually written.
I have used and been subjected to many charm effects as a player, and employed them as a DM, and I'm currently playing a Monk; instead of trying to tell me what I want and believe, try actually listening to what I have said and my justifications for doing so because the only thing I'm concerned with is the correct way to use charm and abilities that counteract it. I'm not sure why you're even still involved; you made a DM ruling against an abusive player, that's fine, I already said as much (you even quoted me doing so earlier), it might not be my preferred way to deal with it within the rules but what's right in the moment in someone else's game isn't up to me (practically the first rule of D&D is that the DM's word is law). I'm talking about how the rules are supposed to interact normally as that's all I care about.
I don't mind if someone disagrees with me, but I will absolutely defend my position. However your entire post is littered with straw-man arguments you've invented either intentionally or by not actually reading what I've said; if you want to have a massive ranting argument with yourself please do that offline.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Dodging is an active ability; you are choosing to stop attacking (or attack less if you're a Monk) in order to focus on defense. That could mean ducking, weaving, zig-zagging as you move etc. beyond what you would normally do to defend yourself. You are actively doing more to protect yourself and evade harm. There's always a slight disconnect between action economy and what's happening narratively because of the turn structure (characters don't actually move instantaneously then stand still like a post while enemies take turns to wail on them).
An easy way to think of it as changing stance from aggressive to defensive; instead of punching away you are blocking, or you've got your guard up etc.
No. You picture it as active. You have this idea in your head that when your dodging your under attack at all times. But this isn't always true. Grab a little reality and calm down and think for a moment. Just how stupid and unlikely it would look for somebody to be doing all this ducking and weaving and moving around. But nobody is actually trying to do anything to them. it makes so little sense that it's actually used as a joke in some types of movies. Most particularly martial arts comedies but it's shown up elsewhere as well.
Your Focus may be more on the defensive than on the offensive. But that does not necessarily mean your are somehow magically Defending against all these kinds of attacks at all times. it just means that your awareness is more on incoming attacks rather than outgoing attacks. There are tons and tons of examples, particularly in things like martial Arts Movies, but all kinds of movies with fights in them where a Master combatant goes on the defense and they make minimal movements to thwart the attacks of an aggressor. Only reacting and adjusting to what the attacker is doing and not particularly doing anything active beyond that. This is in all kinds of media all over the place in both eastern and western action.
You see Dodge as Active because your very focused on just one mental image and deciding that is all that action has to be. Whether it makes sense of not. The cold hard reality however is that if your character isn't attacked. Then no matter how you want to picture it in your mind, Doing all that ducking and weaving and avoiding blows as you describe it, nothing actually happens and you weren't actually mechanically and physically active anywhere but your mental picture of it.
And I'm sorry this sounds harsh. I know that often times because our characters are doing something that it must be in some way awesome and epic and in our minds that tends to mean some kind of active display. We all do this to some extent. Even old and jaded players. But it doesn't always fit the reality of what is going on. There is a reason why we have plenty of images in media of some super spy or aged martial arts master or something casually drinking tea while fending off a series of blows from a young student or over-confident rival. This is showing another side to some of these things like this and that they aren't necessarily always as active as our imaginations might try and make them. Dodging is one of these things. The Easiest mental image is also the one that can easily make the least sense if the action doesn't play out in favor of them.
No. You picture it as active. You have this idea in your head that when your dodging your under attack at all times. But this isn't always true.
You've conveniently skipped over and ignored the parts where I talk about the disconnect between action economy, turns and narrative, and find it's simpler to think of it as changing stance. Why is it that nobody seems to want to actually read what I write, but instead just grab at fragments to try and argue against arguments I haven't made?
But changing stance, i.e- being ready to defend yourself, is still an active activity; people don't default to a defensive stance either in reality or in the rules, otherwise it wouldn't need to be an action at all, as the rules would simply state "during any turn in which you had but did not use an action, you are dodging" but that's not how combat works, and you'll find most DM's won't be happy if you try to declare "I dodge continuously everywhere I go", just as they won't be happy with players who say "I'm always using Blade Ward", as while they're technically things you can do for free every turn mechanically, they're not really zero cost narratively. It's something you have to choose to do when you need to, or when there's a clear reason to do-so (e.g- spot signs of a possible ambush or you know there are enemies or possible traps nearby etc.).
There is a reason why we have plenty of images in media of some super spy or aged martial arts master or something casually drinking tea while fending off a series of blows from a young student or over-confident rival.
To do this they still need to be prepared for it, and actually it's already represented in the Monk class; drinking tea would be an action, but by being a Monk you can also Patient Defence (at a cost in Ki) to simultaneously, and actively, defend yourself to your full ability. 😝
A Monk who isn't ready or willing to spend Ki when confronted by said student or rival can't do that, because they're not actively doing anything extra.
Anyway, I'm getting tired of this thread, I'm just going to unsubscribe now.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
No. You picture it as active. You have this idea in your head that when your dodging your under attack at all times. But this isn't always true.
You've conveniently skipped over and ignored the parts where I talk about the disconnect between action economy, turns and narrative, and find it's simpler to think of it as changing stance. Why is it that nobody seems to want to actually read what I write, but instead just grab at fragments to try and argue against arguments I haven't made?
But changing stance, i.e- being ready to defend yourself, is still an active activity; people don't default to a defensive stance either in reality or in the rules, otherwise it wouldn't need to be an action at all, as the rules would simply state "during any turn in which you had but did not use an action, you are dodging" but that's not how combat works, and you'll find most DM's won't be happy if you try to declare "I dodge continuously everywhere I go", just as they won't be happy with players who say "I'm always using Blade Ward", as while they're technically things you can do for free every turn mechanically, they're not really zero cost narratively. It's something you have to choose to do when you need to, or when there's a clear reason to do-so (e.g- spot signs of a possible ambush or you know there are enemies or possible traps nearby etc.).
There is a reason why we have plenty of images in media of some super spy or aged martial arts master or something casually drinking tea while fending off a series of blows from a young student or over-confident rival.
To do this they still need to be prepared for it, and actually it's already represented in the Monk class; drinking tea would be an action, but by being a Monk you can also Patient Defence (at a cost in Ki) to simultaneously, and actively, defend yourself to your full ability. 😝
A Monk who isn't ready or willing to spend Ki when confronted by said student or rival can't do that, because they're not actively doing anything extra.
Anyway, I'm getting tired of this thread, I'm just going to unsubscribe now.
I did not skip over your talking about viewing it as changing stance. I rolled that up in your mental image of how it works. Because it is.
You want to act like I didn't address that because i didn't call it out specifically. But I did not need to call it out specifically because it's just part of the overall picture. It's how you actively use it in your mind but it does not address everything about it. Even if you character "changes stance" that is not necessarily active. A Change of Stance is entirely mental window dressing as I said. it does not get special consideration in any way. It's either doing little to nothing if you aren't actually targeted or it's bouncing around for no good reason if your not being targetted depending on how you picture it in your mind. It's not special. it doesn't get differing Consideration. It's lumped in with all of the rest of the mental imaging and there are still other ways that picture it and ways that that can ultimately mean nothing but personal mental flavor.
Blade Ward is not entirely the same thing. It's a spell first of all. But it is a way to put up a defense if you have nothing better to do with your action in that turn. Something that i've actually seen a number of players use when they don't have something better to do with their action for a turn just for safety. Same with the Dodge action and for similar reasons. It may not stop any damage but it does protect you for that turn. Passively moving around you after you cast it and reactively blocking some of the damage that you would take. And Guess what? If your under some kind of charm effect that is not actively using up your turn and your of a mentality that you might be attacked. You can cast Blade Ward to protect yourself as you move around and stuff. There's actually nothing that stops it from being done if for some reason you expect threats. Being Charmed by a Vampire for example does not actually make all their allies your allies. They are still potentially dangerous threats that you can believe might attack you so you protect yourself. If you are turned against your own party. You may expect some threat against them.
Also. While it may not be normal for you to go around in a defensive posture or position. This is not true of anybody. You may not always recognize that their posture is inherently defensive because they aren't holding a shield or sword in front of them in some vaguely threatening defensive manner. But plenty of people do actually walk around with a defensive posture or a defensive mentality for various reasons. Some of them physical, some of them psychological, and for a few it's from intense training in things like martial Arts. Which is why some top level fighters with certain kinds of teaching tend to automatically lash out when surprised. Even against people that they don't mean to do such to. This is an actual thing that people actually do because it's either kept them alive on a battlefield somewhere or because their training incorporated such readiness.
So you may not like it and may not think it is realistic. But this is entirely a thing even in the real world. many Combat Styles and many teachings do not have some kind of dramatic change of pose like Action Movies like to have to switch between Offense and defense. The primary poses they are taught are meant for both actions. Even if they shift from being highly aggressive in one moment to fully defensive the next.
@Haravikk your entire point in this entire thread is that if somebody talks about lore you switch to mechanics. If one talks about mechanics you switch to lore. If one goes specific, you go general. If one goes general, you go specific. If one mentions something you either go for the rules-wise meaning or something or the general english meaning of the same something, as long as it suits you. Yes, you are defending your position. But you are doing so via "internet troll tactics".
Yes, if everything aligns with your view, you are right: the monk should in theory roll insight to know they have been manipulated for all the spells that specifically do not call out the character being conscious of the manipulation. If the GM wants to completely avoid any whatsoever form of metagaming. Because, yes, the monk knowing it is being manipulated when the spell does not say so and the monk has no hints... is indeed metagaming.
So yes. If those conditions are met. You are 100% right. But i have had the same stance from the beginning, and it was my original motive for restarting this thread: • Metagaming is not inherently bad, nor should be avoided to the detriment of the enjoyment of the game at the table. • Manipulating player characters into acting long-term under various kinds of enchantments that charm them is a bad GMing practice. Unless that is the entire point of the adventure. That was agreed by all players involved. • Players who wish to manipulate other players into acting long-term under various kinds of enchantments that charm them is something to be avoided at all costs. Unless that is the entire point of the adventure. That was agreed by all players involved.
This literally was why i restarted this thread.
Why? Very simply because you are removing player agency and telling the player what to do, which means at that point the player has no incentive to even stay at the table or play at all, since it is just a puppet. So: something that lasts a bit inside one session might be thrilling, but if every session is people commanding players to do stuff """"as a friend"""" and players cannot be freed for long before they are being commanded again... yeah, might as well let the GM or player play by themselves. What is the point of playing a roleplaying game where you have no agency?
Mindless Rage is an odd one, BBEG casts dominate person on the Barbarian and tells him to Kill the party Cleric. The barbarian goes into a rage (quite naturally before he goees into combat) and suddenly realises the cleric is not worthy of death but the BBEG is. From the BBEG's point of view his spell was wasted
Stillness of mind I see as something in the ki makes themonk realise something is not quite right, and if he spends a few seconds meditating on it he will realise it is a charm effect. From the BBEG point of view at least he sopped the monk acting that turn.
Mindless Rage is an odd one, BBEG casts dominate person on the Barbarian and tells him to Kill the party Cleric. The barbarian goes into a rage (quite naturally before he goees into combat) and suddenly realises the cleric is not worthy of death but the BBEG is. From the BBEG's point of view his spell was wasted
Stillness of mind I see as something in the ki makes themonk realise something is not quite right, and if he spends a few seconds meditating on it he will realise it is a charm effect. From the BBEG point of view at least he sopped the monk acting that turn.
The monk can't use an action to meditate as they are dominated.... It specifically says the affected creature cannot use any action you don't tell it to do.
Mindless Rage is an odd one, BBEG casts dominate person on the Barbarian and tells him to Kill the party Cleric. The barbarian goes into a rage (quite naturally before he goees into combat) and suddenly realises the cleric is not worthy of death but the BBEG is. From the BBEG's point of view his spell was wasted
Stillness of mind I see as something in the ki makes themonk realise something is not quite right, and if he spends a few seconds meditating on it he will realise it is a charm effect. From the BBEG point of view at least he sopped the monk acting that turn.
The monk can't use an action to meditate as they are dominated.... It specifically says the affected creature cannot use any action you don't tell it to do.
Only if the dominator is using their action to control the target, otherwise the target "defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability."
Stillness of the mind costs an action. Unless the charm says "you can't use an action" or such, there's no reason to stop it.
Monks a monk. They can catch arrows without even knowing they were being shot and slowfall 100 ft drop without damage despite there being nothing to actually slow on. Punch a dragon and watch it freeze up from a stunning strike. They reach a point where they can talk to anything that can talk just because Ki.
The reason it doesn't just give immunity is so those higher level spells can still affect em. Otherwise? Monk's know their body and mind all too well to go 'yea okay' when a succubus charms em and tells em to go waste their party.
The ability and some spells contradict each other. So would Dominate be the generic and Stillness of mind the specific? or the other way ? That would be for the individual DM to judge.
Stillness of mind gives the player character the abiltiy to use its action for one specific purpose. Dominate says i't cant use it's action for anything.
Me, I'd have ruled the one action Stillness of Mind allows the character to take , is more specific than "take no other actions". It also tend to fit better with a rule of cool. So a monk with stillness of mind could choose to go ahead and use its action to follow the commands of its dominator, or use it to end the effect.
RP wise, the monk might react to a slowly growing sense that something is wrong, out of balance. Or Its agaisnt its nature. Or it could be that it immediately recognized a foreing pressure and acted agianst it. Thats all flavour, and for the player do deal with. Mechanics wise, the player can shoose freely when its monk uses the ability or not.(during its own turn, obviously )
The ability and some spells contradict each other. So would Dominate be the generic and Stillness of mind the specific? or the other way ? That would be for the individual DM to judge.
Stillness of mind gives the player character the abiltiy to use its action for one specific purpose. Dominate says i't cant use it's action for anything.
Me, I'd have ruled the one action Stillness of Mind allows the character to take , is more specific than "take no other actions". It also tend to fit better with a rule of cool. So a monk with stillness of mind could choose to go ahead and use its action to follow the commands of its dominator, or use it to end the effect.
RP wise, the monk might react to a slowly growing sense that something is wrong, out of balance. Or Its agaisnt its nature. Or it could be that it immediately recognized a foreing pressure and acted agianst it. Thats all flavour, and for the player do deal with. Mechanics wise, the player can shoose freely when its monk uses the ability or not.(during its own turn, obviously )
Having had reason to look at it recently. And not thinking of this thread until this popped up for me again today.
If your Talking about the Dominate Person Spell. This is not actually what it says.
It only doesn't take another action if you specifically use your action to basically take fine control of them for a single round. Any thing outside of that round. They do not function under this ruling. They function under the more general charm rules that without some kind of specific or general command to do something they protect themselves and preserve themselves to the best of their Ability. Which means that Stillness of Mind do not actually contradict at all and in fact would imply that it should fire off Stillness of Mind because that is part of defending and preserving themselves to the best of their ability. Despite it not necessarily being explicitly what the spell caster wanted.
That actually solves the issue of what your allowed to do with the spell. Any turn that the spell caster is not actively controlling you but just issuing commands that do not contradict action economy wise with using it. You are not under the restriction of "you cannot do anything else" as it keeps being stated as and on turns they are causing your action economy being used. If They are actively controlling you they are basically doing your entire turn for you as if they were you. Which is a step above and beyond simply being charmed and requires their own Action and possibly Reaction to do so.
The ability and some spells contradict each other. So would Dominate be the generic and Stillness of mind the specific? or the other way ? That would be for the individual DM to judge.
Stillness of mind gives the player character the abiltiy to use its action for one specific purpose. Dominate says i't cant use it's action for anything.
Me, I'd have ruled the one action Stillness of Mind allows the character to take , is more specific than "take no other actions". It also tend to fit better with a rule of cool. So a monk with stillness of mind could choose to go ahead and use its action to follow the commands of its dominator, or use it to end the effect.
RP wise, the monk might react to a slowly growing sense that something is wrong, out of balance. Or Its agaisnt its nature. Or it could be that it immediately recognized a foreing pressure and acted agianst it. Thats all flavour, and for the player do deal with. Mechanics wise, the player can shoose freely when its monk uses the ability or not.(during its own turn, obviously )
Having had reason to look at it recently. And not thinking of this thread until this popped up for me again today.
If your Talking about the Dominate Person Spell. This is not actually what it says.
It only doesn't take another action if you specifically use your action to basically take fine control of them for a single round. Any thing outside of that round. They do not function under this ruling. They function under the more general charm rules that without some kind of specific or general command to do something they protect themselves and preserve themselves to the best of their Ability. Which means that Stillness of Mind do not actually contradict at all and in fact would imply that it should fire off Stillness of Mind because that is part of defending and preserving themselves to the best of their ability. Despite it not necessarily being explicitly what the spell caster wanted.
That actually solves the issue of what your allowed to do with the spell. Any turn that the spell caster is not actively controlling you but just issuing commands that do not contradict action economy wise with using it. You are not under the restriction of "you cannot do anything else" as it keeps being stated as and on turns they are causing your action economy being used. If They are actively controlling you they are basically doing your entire turn for you as if they were you. Which is a step above and beyond simply being charmed and requires their own Action and possibly Reaction to do so.
Any intelligent creature will just say "run away until you collapse" or "Attack your friends until they are dead" and they would do it and not use Stillness.
It's not hard to make them use their action doing other things
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It doesn't say you're unaware during the effects, it says you become aware as a result of the spell ending. Without that explicit awareness it's clear you wouldn't necessarily realise anything had happened, though that may depend upon what you were actually made to do exactly; if someone you don't like compelled you to get them a drink then you might just shake that off as a lapse in judgement, rather than suspecting foul play, but if they had you do jumping jacks for an hour then you'd wonder why you did that, and could reasonably suspect foul play. But with the explicit awareness you always know.
While the spell perceptibility issue doesn't necessarily apply to monster abilities, consider that this is basically the entirety of the charm effect for a succubus (the rest is the setup and how it ends):
Yet conventional wisdom will usually be that while charmed by a succubus a character should want to do as the succubus says; they're not inwardly screaming "why am I doing this" they're completely and utterly devoted to the succubus until the effect ends, or something happens to make them aware of it. That's how every DM or player I've seen affected by it plays it, including Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford during Acquisitions Incorporated (though it's admittedly not the most canon source despite Omin Dran being confirmed as a lord of waterdeep in the Death Masks book).
This isn't even really something specific to succubi, but a lot of monsters that can charm like vampires etc., so I see no reason to assume charm spells should be any different; any perceptive change is accepted as reality, there may be some wiggle room for questioning but outright awareness would go against the point of being charmed, it may as well just be puppeteering instead, though that raises some interesting ideas for a high level "charm" spell (that doesn't use the charmed condition).
If everyone that got charmed was immediately automatically aware of that fact then most charm effects would be basically pointless, as you could just use whatever leeway you have to yell "someone charmed me, go and get help!" or otherwise make a scene until someone notices. Either that or it would require every charmer to be absurdly specific in their commands every single time in order to give you no leeway whatsoever except to maintian basic bodily functions. That interpretation would render Geas useless as a spell because low level NPCs would just refuse and die in response to every command (as they don't know they'll take damage until the first time it happens), and higher level characters would just choose to take the damage and then punch the caster in the face until they die.
The point of a charm is that it's changing your perceptions; an enemy is now a friend, so what? You might wonder why you were ever enemies, and might even remember why, but you'd just rationalise it away unless there's something majorly and specifically amiss (hence the need to test for awareness). Maybe you forgave them? Maybe they turned over a new leaf? Maybe you were in the wrong for doubting them and actually you were the villain?
It would however be absolutely perceptible to your friends; or at least it should be, assuming any of them pay enough attention to know when you're acting strangely. Though again, depends on the exact circumstances; if someone who isn't an enemy compels a player to report on the party's acitivities, then if none of the party witnessed that happen, they might just see the player occassionally writing a letter might think nothing of it until the player suddenly snaps out of it said "I just spent the last 30 days reporting on all of our activities to some guy from the pub. Why would I even do that, and why didn't any of you stop me?".
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You cannot become aware if you were already aware. The text asserts that you are not aware of the spell's effects while the spell is active.
And since only 2 spells clarify that awareness is gained after the spell releases, the simplest assumption is that people know they are charmed or otherwise mind controlled during other spells.
That wouldn't make charm effects pointless. For instance, would it really matter if you call out "Im not in control!" as you suddenly start wailing on your allies? No, its not some grand secret they won't put together given 2 more seconds of thought. (if your character starts attacking their allies, its kind of hard to hide that they are enchanted from them either).
And the spells that compel you towards a goal wouldn't really allow you to specifically scream out something to undermine the goal you are compelled to.
And for the few mind altering spells that use the charm condition in that way, its spelled out that the victim is unaware and friendly towards you (charm person, friends).
But for others like Dominate Person, there is no text about a change of perception in the target's mind. Instead, they are controlled and aware of it, but largely unable to do anything about it.
I'm still Reading Through. But I just want to point out two things.
1st. Many Charm spells state that the person that is under the effects of it knows they are charmed. People tend to argue far to heavily in the favor of spells effects not being noticeable because they have an active interest in various opponents and npc's not being able to break out of their spells or notice a spell being cast for various nefarious purposes. So they argue heavily under a twisted rule to make everything as subtle as possible. But nowhere in the short rule about subtlety on spells and spell like effects state that being under an effect of a spell does NOT make you aware that your affected when the spell does not specifically state that. A small handful of spells and special abilities do actually create that condition of not knowing. It's supposed to be one of the major strengths for those spells and abilities by having that wording.
2nd. Many people like to interpret the fact that use of an action is involved that it is something active. But it is not necessarily. Dodge takes an action but it's not entirely active for example. It is more reactive despite not requiring your reaction in some way but requires more of your action economy to use it. It's you doing your best to avoid all blows but it's important to realize that if you use it and nobody attacks. All you've really done is move and wait for the most part, perhaps with story flavor about doing it in a readied pose. This is important because once you realize that some abilities are useful not so much necessarily because your being real active about them but simply because your not being particularly active through other Actions that you could take. That some abilities like Defense and the action to clear your mind through an ability like Stillness of Mind are important because they aren't so much about being active themselves but rather how your spending your time between moments of activity. Readying an Action is another example of basically using part of your action economy not to actually be directly active but more reactive as well, though it does ultimately require your reaction.
So while your moving under compulsion to go get an item 200 feet away. If the instructions don't somehow involve using up your action to do that. That means you technically have actions free for things like Stillness of Mind and the Defense action and many others. And it might be quite fitting to actually use them depending on what is going on. Or perhaps in absence of having something else to do. If a Monk is Dominated and told to wait or whatever else and they aren't actively required to use their action, It's time and effort that can easily be turned inward. And thanks to the fact that the ability doesn't in any way say that any actual knowledge or awareness on behalf of the character is involved. There's nothing to stop you from doing it. It's also not meta-gaming in the way that most people are complaining about when they use that term.
That's not the simplest assumption; spells need to be perciptible to be perceived. Charm spells typically only have vocal components, some have somatic components, but unless these are obvious (and observed) you have no reason to assume you are aware a spell is being cast upon you, nor are the effects going to be obvious to the target during the spell, though they may be obvious to those who know them.
The fact that only some spells specify awareness when they end makes it clear that targets normally are not aware they were charmed at all, and that one of the balancing features of these lower level spells is that the target always knows they were charmed.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
They don't need to, to remove one charm effect you need to be aware of which one you want to end. Just as you don't cure someone of poison unless you suspect they're poisoned, and don't heal someone unless you know they're wounded etc.
And it doesn't mean they are "never able to use it" as I've gone over several times; any character can potentially become aware they might be charmed, all they have to do is ask for an insight or arcana check when something strange occurs as a result of the spell, e.g- doing something that your character would never have done before, former friends are telling you to snap out of it etc. If you succeed then you become aware you might be charmed, and can try to do something about it.
The advantage of having Stillness of Mind (or Mindless Rage for a Berserker) is that you actually have something you can do about it once that happens. Casters can also potentially end it, but they would need to know (and prepare) Dispel Magic (only works on spells) or Greater Restoration.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I am a bit confused....
Are we saying that if an enemy Mage uses Dominate Person on a Monk and succeeds then the Monk can just end the effect on themselves?
I would argue they cannot as it explicitly says you can only take actions that the caster of the spell allows so in this case they would not be able to use their action to dismiss the effect.
Dude we get it. You like your rod of rulership. And dropping charmed on players.
Only you care about that, the rest of the people here acknowledge that there are many ways in which a monk's ability can be bypassed.
And that you should not waste charm spells on monks, unless they stop the monks from taking action.
Period.
What's the point. Seriously?
Do you really need your players to be marionettes?! No, i'm asking seriously, because all this angst against the monk being unable to be effectively charmed by long term spells is just...
...who cares?
Who is going to use a long term charm spell on a player?!?!
Can we all stop babbling for a moment? Because i started my reply that resurrected this thread from the dead, saying that the entire debacle started when a player tried to charm another player.
WHICH IS ALREADY BAD.
And people here are seriously complaining about bad guys being unable to do so on players? Seriously?
I mean if you have an evil monk and you need to mind control him in some way, make it a cursed item and attach it to his forehead like Goku from journey to the west, but the player needs to be okay with it.
I seriously do not understand why everybody is trying to defend long term mental manipulation on characters owned by the players. Or even villain NPCs.
No seriously, this has gone on long enough. I can understand the philosophical discussion, but once we agree to disagree this should be over.
This has been going on for an entire week with people saying "you "should"/"should not" be aware of the charme" yeah okay.
Even if.
Why?
Because, once again, i started this whole thing by saying "yeah a d***head tried to win at D&D and take control of other player character actions".
Charmes are inherently the kind of spell that takes away the player's ability to act on the player's terms.
And we have already established with multiple examples how by charming a monk in combat you at the very minimum take said monk out of the fight for at least one round. Which, allow me to say, is already a big, huge, eternity of helplessness Especially on important fights and especially if the monk gets attacked by the rest of the charmed party but cannot slap some sense into them because he has to keep using his actions to get out of charme, it's not like a monk is famous for having high defenses of any kind.
So... you know.
Why is it important that you can keep the monk charmed on the long term outside of combat?
No seriously.
I would like to know at this point because it's been a week of constant bickering here about "lore" this or "RaW" that or "RaI" tit for tat.
I feel like everybody has lost the entire focus of the question and why it happens that the monk is charmed.
Why does a Player or GM for any whatsoever VALID reason have to charm the monk player character and/or any player character long term?
Because in my book that's like high levels of rail roading.
Something that should be agreed upon out of character.
Not something that should be like... defended ...in any reason or capacity.
So, yeah. Why does anybody have the need as a GM or a player to keep a f-ing monk charmed long term? Please answer me this question with valid reasons.
Right now the only reasons i can think of are better resolved out of game such as:
• it's an adventure hook (think suicide squad) in which case the monk could be fitted with a special item that has the same effects instead of being charmed. Like Goku in journey to the west.
• a player wants to control an NPC opponent that opposing monk is dead, once the NPC baddie wastes his turn to get rid of the charme... everybody will have had its entire round to dish damage on the squishy monk, and then another round after that before the monk can start acting again.
• an unexpected foe wants to control the party. Well, now i feel sorry for the monk because the monk does not exist in a vacuum and unless said monk is not the only one to have broken free of the charme.... yeah, things are going to get funky for the monk. Monks tend to be glass cannons compared to stuff like fighters, barbarians and moon druids who are melee happy, and being unable to dish as much damage as your average rogue (that shares the "glass cannony" aspect)... yeah. It's going to die badly.
• the GM is a rail roader and likes to have quest givers to cast geas or whatever. In which case... yeah bye. Not going to play with you, unless it was something i was warned about and i pre-agreed with before we started the adventure. At which point, yeah, i'll just not use the ability or we could do (as suggested) checks to see if my character can know, but by now it falls into the "adventure hook" category.
• a player wants to control everybody. Kick immediately the player out of the game at the end of the session, let the monk save the party mid-session.
yeah, i don't see any other reasons.
Only if they have the opportunity to do-so; if Dominate Monster is causing the Monk's action to be overridden then they have no choice.
But the player could still push for insight checks or such so that they're ready for any turn in which their action isn't being chosen for them (as the caster has to sacrifice their own action in order to do that, so may either choose not to, or may be unable to).
I'm not the one who raised Rod of Rulership, you did; I have never had that item or had that item used in any campaign within which I've played. Instead of inventing arguments that I have not made, try reading what I have actually written.
I have used and been subjected to many charm effects as a player, and employed them as a DM, and I'm currently playing a Monk; instead of trying to tell me what I want and believe, try actually listening to what I have said and my justifications for doing so because the only thing I'm concerned with is the correct way to use charm and abilities that counteract it. I'm not sure why you're even still involved; you made a DM ruling against an abusive player, that's fine, I already said as much (you even quoted me doing so earlier), it might not be my preferred way to deal with it within the rules but what's right in the moment in someone else's game isn't up to me (practically the first rule of D&D is that the DM's word is law). I'm talking about how the rules are supposed to interact normally as that's all I care about.
I don't mind if someone disagrees with me, but I will absolutely defend my position. However your entire post is littered with straw-man arguments you've invented either intentionally or by not actually reading what I've said; if you want to have a massive ranting argument with yourself please do that offline.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
No. You picture it as active. You have this idea in your head that when your dodging your under attack at all times. But this isn't always true. Grab a little reality and calm down and think for a moment. Just how stupid and unlikely it would look for somebody to be doing all this ducking and weaving and moving around. But nobody is actually trying to do anything to them. it makes so little sense that it's actually used as a joke in some types of movies. Most particularly martial arts comedies but it's shown up elsewhere as well.
Your Focus may be more on the defensive than on the offensive. But that does not necessarily mean your are somehow magically Defending against all these kinds of attacks at all times. it just means that your awareness is more on incoming attacks rather than outgoing attacks. There are tons and tons of examples, particularly in things like martial Arts Movies, but all kinds of movies with fights in them where a Master combatant goes on the defense and they make minimal movements to thwart the attacks of an aggressor. Only reacting and adjusting to what the attacker is doing and not particularly doing anything active beyond that. This is in all kinds of media all over the place in both eastern and western action.
You see Dodge as Active because your very focused on just one mental image and deciding that is all that action has to be. Whether it makes sense of not. The cold hard reality however is that if your character isn't attacked. Then no matter how you want to picture it in your mind, Doing all that ducking and weaving and avoiding blows as you describe it, nothing actually happens and you weren't actually mechanically and physically active anywhere but your mental picture of it.
And I'm sorry this sounds harsh. I know that often times because our characters are doing something that it must be in some way awesome and epic and in our minds that tends to mean some kind of active display. We all do this to some extent. Even old and jaded players. But it doesn't always fit the reality of what is going on. There is a reason why we have plenty of images in media of some super spy or aged martial arts master or something casually drinking tea while fending off a series of blows from a young student or over-confident rival. This is showing another side to some of these things like this and that they aren't necessarily always as active as our imaginations might try and make them. Dodging is one of these things. The Easiest mental image is also the one that can easily make the least sense if the action doesn't play out in favor of them.
You've conveniently skipped over and ignored the parts where I talk about the disconnect between action economy, turns and narrative, and find it's simpler to think of it as changing stance. Why is it that nobody seems to want to actually read what I write, but instead just grab at fragments to try and argue against arguments I haven't made?
But changing stance, i.e- being ready to defend yourself, is still an active activity; people don't default to a defensive stance either in reality or in the rules, otherwise it wouldn't need to be an action at all, as the rules would simply state "during any turn in which you had but did not use an action, you are dodging" but that's not how combat works, and you'll find most DM's won't be happy if you try to declare "I dodge continuously everywhere I go", just as they won't be happy with players who say "I'm always using Blade Ward", as while they're technically things you can do for free every turn mechanically, they're not really zero cost narratively. It's something you have to choose to do when you need to, or when there's a clear reason to do-so (e.g- spot signs of a possible ambush or you know there are enemies or possible traps nearby etc.).
To do this they still need to be prepared for it, and actually it's already represented in the Monk class; drinking tea would be an action, but by being a Monk you can also Patient Defence (at a cost in Ki) to simultaneously, and actively, defend yourself to your full ability. 😝
A Monk who isn't ready or willing to spend Ki when confronted by said student or rival can't do that, because they're not actively doing anything extra.
Anyway, I'm getting tired of this thread, I'm just going to unsubscribe now.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I did not skip over your talking about viewing it as changing stance. I rolled that up in your mental image of how it works. Because it is.
You want to act like I didn't address that because i didn't call it out specifically. But I did not need to call it out specifically because it's just part of the overall picture. It's how you actively use it in your mind but it does not address everything about it. Even if you character "changes stance" that is not necessarily active. A Change of Stance is entirely mental window dressing as I said. it does not get special consideration in any way. It's either doing little to nothing if you aren't actually targeted or it's bouncing around for no good reason if your not being targetted depending on how you picture it in your mind. It's not special. it doesn't get differing Consideration. It's lumped in with all of the rest of the mental imaging and there are still other ways that picture it and ways that that can ultimately mean nothing but personal mental flavor.
Blade Ward is not entirely the same thing. It's a spell first of all. But it is a way to put up a defense if you have nothing better to do with your action in that turn. Something that i've actually seen a number of players use when they don't have something better to do with their action for a turn just for safety. Same with the Dodge action and for similar reasons. It may not stop any damage but it does protect you for that turn. Passively moving around you after you cast it and reactively blocking some of the damage that you would take. And Guess what? If your under some kind of charm effect that is not actively using up your turn and your of a mentality that you might be attacked. You can cast Blade Ward to protect yourself as you move around and stuff. There's actually nothing that stops it from being done if for some reason you expect threats. Being Charmed by a Vampire for example does not actually make all their allies your allies. They are still potentially dangerous threats that you can believe might attack you so you protect yourself. If you are turned against your own party. You may expect some threat against them.
Also. While it may not be normal for you to go around in a defensive posture or position. This is not true of anybody. You may not always recognize that their posture is inherently defensive because they aren't holding a shield or sword in front of them in some vaguely threatening defensive manner. But plenty of people do actually walk around with a defensive posture or a defensive mentality for various reasons. Some of them physical, some of them psychological, and for a few it's from intense training in things like martial Arts. Which is why some top level fighters with certain kinds of teaching tend to automatically lash out when surprised. Even against people that they don't mean to do such to. This is an actual thing that people actually do because it's either kept them alive on a battlefield somewhere or because their training incorporated such readiness.
So you may not like it and may not think it is realistic. But this is entirely a thing even in the real world. many Combat Styles and many teachings do not have some kind of dramatic change of pose like Action Movies like to have to switch between Offense and defense. The primary poses they are taught are meant for both actions. Even if they shift from being highly aggressive in one moment to fully defensive the next.
@Haravikk your entire point in this entire thread is that if somebody talks about lore you switch to mechanics. If one talks about mechanics you switch to lore. If one goes specific, you go general. If one goes general, you go specific. If one mentions something you either go for the rules-wise meaning or something or the general english meaning of the same something, as long as it suits you. Yes, you are defending your position. But you are doing so via "internet troll tactics".
Yes, if everything aligns with your view, you are right: the monk should in theory roll insight to know they have been manipulated for all the spells that specifically do not call out the character being conscious of the manipulation. If the GM wants to completely avoid any whatsoever form of metagaming. Because, yes, the monk knowing it is being manipulated when the spell does not say so and the monk has no hints... is indeed metagaming.
So yes. If those conditions are met. You are 100% right. But i have had the same stance from the beginning, and it was my original motive for restarting this thread:
• Metagaming is not inherently bad, nor should be avoided to the detriment of the enjoyment of the game at the table.
• Manipulating player characters into acting long-term under various kinds of enchantments that charm them is a bad GMing practice. Unless that is the entire point of the adventure. That was agreed by all players involved.
• Players who wish to manipulate other players into acting long-term under various kinds of enchantments that charm them is something to be avoided at all costs. Unless that is the entire point of the adventure. That was agreed by all players involved.
This literally was why i restarted this thread.
Why? Very simply because you are removing player agency and telling the player what to do, which means at that point the player has no incentive to even stay at the table or play at all, since it is just a puppet. So: something that lasts a bit inside one session might be thrilling, but if every session is people commanding players to do stuff """"as a friend"""" and players cannot be freed for long before they are being commanded again... yeah, might as well let the GM or player play by themselves. What is the point of playing a roleplaying game where you have no agency?
Mindless Rage is an odd one, BBEG casts dominate person on the Barbarian and tells him to Kill the party Cleric. The barbarian goes into a rage (quite naturally before he goees into combat) and suddenly realises the cleric is not worthy of death but the BBEG is. From the BBEG's point of view his spell was wasted
Stillness of mind I see as something in the ki makes themonk realise something is not quite right, and if he spends a few seconds meditating on it he will realise it is a charm effect. From the BBEG point of view at least he sopped the monk acting that turn.
The monk can't use an action to meditate as they are dominated.... It specifically says the affected creature cannot use any action you don't tell it to do.
Only if the dominator is using their action to control the target, otherwise the target "defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability."
Stillness of the mind costs an action. Unless the charm says "you can't use an action" or such, there's no reason to stop it.
Monks a monk. They can catch arrows without even knowing they were being shot and slowfall 100 ft drop without damage despite there being nothing to actually slow on. Punch a dragon and watch it freeze up from a stunning strike. They reach a point where they can talk to anything that can talk just because Ki.
The reason it doesn't just give immunity is so those higher level spells can still affect em. Otherwise? Monk's know their body and mind all too well to go 'yea okay' when a succubus charms em and tells em to go waste their party.
The ability and some spells contradict each other. So would Dominate be the generic and Stillness of mind the specific? or the other way ? That would be for the individual DM to judge.
Stillness of mind gives the player character the abiltiy to use its action for one specific purpose.
Dominate says i't cant use it's action for anything.
Me, I'd have ruled the one action Stillness of Mind allows the character to take , is more specific than "take no other actions". It also tend to fit better with a rule of cool.
So a monk with stillness of mind could choose to go ahead and use its action to follow the commands of its dominator, or use it to end the effect.
RP wise, the monk might react to a slowly growing sense that something is wrong, out of balance. Or Its agaisnt its nature. Or it could be that it immediately recognized a foreing pressure and acted agianst it. Thats all flavour, and for the player do deal with.
Mechanics wise, the player can shoose freely when its monk uses the ability or not.(during its own turn, obviously )
Having had reason to look at it recently. And not thinking of this thread until this popped up for me again today.
If your Talking about the Dominate Person Spell. This is not actually what it says.
It only doesn't take another action if you specifically use your action to basically take fine control of them for a single round. Any thing outside of that round. They do not function under this ruling. They function under the more general charm rules that without some kind of specific or general command to do something they protect themselves and preserve themselves to the best of their Ability. Which means that Stillness of Mind do not actually contradict at all and in fact would imply that it should fire off Stillness of Mind because that is part of defending and preserving themselves to the best of their ability. Despite it not necessarily being explicitly what the spell caster wanted.
dominate Person Spell
That actually solves the issue of what your allowed to do with the spell. Any turn that the spell caster is not actively controlling you but just issuing commands that do not contradict action economy wise with using it. You are not under the restriction of "you cannot do anything else" as it keeps being stated as and on turns they are causing your action economy being used. If They are actively controlling you they are basically doing your entire turn for you as if they were you. Which is a step above and beyond simply being charmed and requires their own Action and possibly Reaction to do so.
Any intelligent creature will just say "run away until you collapse" or "Attack your friends until they are dead" and they would do it and not use Stillness.
It's not hard to make them use their action doing other things