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?
Actually I'd argue the opposite in the case of Mindless Rage, because why wouldn't they use it given that order? Mindless Rage is an added benefit to Rage, but it's not the primary purpose of Rage; you Rage to do more damage and take more punishment, so in a combat situation it's actually potentially a better feature as you have a lot more leeway to trigger it as it's not an ability that requires any awareness of being charmed, as the primary purpose of raging is not to end a charm effect.
I think the more relevant question for a Berserker is wether such a compulsion would force them into a Frenzied Rage, as this would actively make them better at beating up their allies, and while it would inadvertently snap them out of the charm, they'd end up frenzied when they nay not want to be (due to the level of exhaustion they'll end up taking afterwards).
Mindless Rage also gives full immunity so long as the rage lasts, but then I think that's more in keeping with it being a full feature in its own right, whereas Stillness of Mind is just a bonus feature on top of Evasion, so it's understandable that it's more awkward/situational to use.
If we assume PC's understand their abilities then it would not make sense to rage and get out of the compulsion. Especially since raging isn't necessary for a barbarian to attack the way drawing a weapon is.
The point is that a button to press to get out of being charmed when you are being compelled to do a thing is naturally off limits. It would directly contradict the compulsion to do a thing your character knows will end the compulsion early.
And this is another weird case where the Suggestion spell would keep working despite the use of Sillness of Mind, since it doesn't use the charm effect.
If we assume PC's understand their abilities then it would not make sense to rage and get out of the compulsion. Especially since raging isn't necessary for a barbarian to attack the way drawing a weapon is.
My point is you don't need any awareness of the charm in order to trigger Mindless Rage; you only need to justify why your character would Rage.
It still depends on the exact compulsion you're following as always, but anything generic like "attack your friends" gives you the leeway to do it, as the question you need to answer is, "if you had willingly chosen to attack your friends then what abilities would you use?" because simply initiating Rage may actually be too little, as you're compelling one character to fight 3+ characters of the same level, so the sensible thing for them to do is use everything at their disposal, not pull their punches. This is why I mention the potential to inadvertently trigger Frenzied Rage instead. Of course the situation would be different if the command were "attack your allies, but remain in control" or such, i.e- explicitly denying Rage.
You need to answer those types of questions no matter the class; for example, if a Fighter were the one charmed, they need to decide if, had they willingly chosen to do what they're doing, would they use action surge to try to take out an ally faster? A charmed Monk needs to decide if they would spend Ki points for a Flurry of Blows, Stunning Strikes etc. Most DMs will probably let you fudge it a bit and basically "work to rule" by doing the bare minimum to qualify for the task, but if you're playing into the spirit of the charm effect then you should really do what you would do if confronting 3+ enemies of your level on your own (or with only one ally or whatever).
This is why it's trickier with Stillness of Mind as you trigger it with the explicit intention of ending a charm effect (as that's all the ability does), so you need to justify how you're aware you are subject to one, and why you would choose to use it given any limitations/directives you were put under.
This is why it's trickier with Stillness of Mind as you trigger it with the explicit intention of ending a charm effect (as that's all the ability does), so you need to justify how you're aware you are subject to one, and why you would choose to use it given any limitations/directives you were put under.
One possibility is what I did with my monk, make it part of your daily meditations. Add to that using it whenever your allies are fighting and any time someone tells you not to use it.
The other option is to treat it like a few other mechanics (luck, inspiration, etc) where it's an option for the player rather than the character.
Ties directly to what your vision of the skill represents. My take is that the Monk has become intimately attuned to his own mind and mental state. The moment anything interferes with the normal "vibrations" of his mental state, he's aware of it and has the ability to shrug off Charmed and Frightened effects. I don't see it as metagaming, because my interpretation is that the Monk is so in tune with his own psyche that any interruption of that flow is noticed. Some things he can brush off, others, he recognizes, but is powerless to stop (Command as an example)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
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.
Oh, if that is why you insisted... yeah, no i agree. It totally is metagaming. I just do not consider metagaming inherently bad.
One possibility is what I did with my monk, make it part of your daily meditations. Add to that using it whenever your allies are fighting and any time someone tells you not to use it.
Daily routine's a good one, but "whenever your allies are fighting" seems a bit meta-gamey as well, because unless your Monk regularly wastes an action to use the ability when they don't need to then it's hard to argue that that's normal behaviour for them, and the definition of allies may change depending upon the charm.
Likewise with being told not to use it; the point of a charm effect is that a request from the caster may seem like the most reasonable thing in the world, and they have advantage on social checks to persuade you, so unless they whiff the rolls or you roll really well for opposed Insight that feels meta-gamey as well unless your character has a well established habit of doing the exact opposite of what their trusted friends ask of them?
Often the thing with charms is extent; if an enemy just asks you fetch them some tea, then you should probably go with it (unless your character's definining feature is that they never do anything for anybody), but if they ask you to stab your friend in the eye socket, then maybe ask to roll to see if you think that's a reasonable request first.
Ties directly to what your vision of the skill represents. My take is that the Monk has become intimately attuned to his own mind and mental state. The moment anything interferes with the normal "vibrations" of his mental state, he's aware of it and has the ability to shrug off Charmed and Frightened effects. I don't see it as metagaming, because my interpretation is that the Monk is so in tune with his own psyche that any interruption of that flow is noticed.
If that's what the feature was intended to represent it'd be straight up immunity to those conditions; the reason charm spells are dangerous is because they alter your psyche so you perceive allies as enemies, enemies as friends etc., if you play the charm spell as they're intended then you wouldn't automatically notice anything is wrong because the spell is intended to warp your perceptions so that the change seems normal. To shrug it off a roll should definitely be called for in most cases, as that's how we test whether characters notice things; you can't just choose to notice things. Doing so without a roll is almost always going to be meta-gaming.
And bear in mind, we're talking about effects that near universally require that you first fail a Wisdom saving throw, which Monks are already good at, to expect them to be basically immune without being granted immunity in addition goes a bit far IMO, and I say this as a Monk player, especially as that may be in addition to the various boosts to saving throws that parties have at their disposal. And again, this is a feature that is in addition to Evasion, which is already a strong feature, so expecting it to be basically immunity is expecting a lot, as other characters that get Evasion do not get that (or similar).
Ultimately it's an action, so you need to choose to act, and in a way that makes sense within the charm, because the charm has taken effect by this point whether you like it or not; but there are plenty of ways to justify it, or to justify a check to make it possible. Enemies may give commands that are hard to follow, or contradictory, or maybe your allies are trying to get through to you etc., plus some effects have built in opportunities to save against them anyway. But because you have Stillness of Mind, you are gaining additional opportunities to end the effect, because any excuse you can come up with to question the compulsion can give you room to then use the ability; so while your allies can only roll the saves or hope for the conditions that they're given in the effect's description, you've got as many opportunities as you can invent, and if one roll succeeds, then you can use your action to end the effect before anyone else would. I mean, that's just part of the fun, otherwise you're just "nope"-ing an enemy's charm ability (or spent resources on a spell) which is boring IMO; beat them at their own game, don't just refuse to play 😝
<shrug> We'll need to agree to disagree on it, I guess. You want to negate a class feature whose name indicates a oneness of mind and put them in a similar note to everyone else, which might work best for your table. I want to use the feature (on either side of the table) to demonstrate a more direct and intimate connection between thought, consciousness and spiritual harmony. Sure, stick the metagaming tag on, if it suits, but to recognize something is going on in your head that's not normal, and being able to focus (brief meditation perhaps) to cleanse certain effects, sounds VERY much like a Monk ability to me. Anything else, Keen Mind should also give the same benefit for. To suggest a roll should be made (like all other classes?) is to demean the meditation techniques and how they would affect the Monk.
Nah, I don't buy that a class feature should just be balled up into everyone else's basic abilities and I don't buy that someone who meditates to attain that unity of mind, body and spirit would have their mind messed with and NOT realize it. 2 effects they CAN shrug off once noticing it, costing an action, is more than reasonable. By that mentality, nobody can or should be immune to any effects, as it is simply saying "nope" to their poison, or disease, or sleep spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
One possibility is what I did with my monk, make it part of your daily meditations. Add to that using it whenever your allies are fighting and any time someone tells you not to use it.
Daily routine's a good one, but "whenever your allies are fighting" seems a bit meta-gamey as well, because unless your Monk regularly wastes an action to use the ability when they don't need to then it's hard to argue that that's normal behaviour for them, and the definition of allies may change depending upon the charm.
The definition of allies changing because of the charm is rather the point. I didn't mean any time my allies are fighting enemies, I meant when allies are fighting each other, not counting times when one of them obviously just got hit by a spell. On the rare occasions this happens without magic, I do waste a turn trying to clear my head.
Well there's a hell of a straw-man, as I want nothing of the kind.
The feature requires an action, so it's not automatic, and nor are characters automatically aware that they have been charmed; you can't just choose to be aware, just as you can't just choose to be able to see invisible enemies etc. The whole point of charm spells is that they change your character's perception and/or behaviour, so everything you do while under the influence of one must be done in a way that makes sense given the new constraints.
And as I have already pointed out multiple times, doing it this way does not make the feature useless; while charmed any character has the option to roll to see if they are aware they are charmed, the player can try to spot contradictions from the caster, can be convinced something is wrong by other party members etc., however becoming aware of the charm doesn't matter for most other characters, because they can't do anything about it. However a Monk with Stillness of Mind, once they become aware they might be charmed can simply end the effect, but you need that trigger.
You accuse me of wanting to negate the feature, but what you seem to want is to negate all charm and fear effects, despite not actually having immunity, and on a class that is already fairly resistant to them in the first place, and by purposefully metagaming the feature to do it.
I'm currently a Monk player and see no reason to just "nope" an entire category of effects; we're not immune to magic, we have a tool that allows us to overcome it once there is reasonable doubt, which is something that no other class gets with the exception of Berserker Barbarians who have their stronger Mindless Rage ability (but then that's their entire 6th level feature, not an add-on alongside something else).
I say you want to negate the feature because you're asking for a roll (or were at one point) to counter it or recognize it. Your stand entirely dismisses the notion of the feature, where he/she is fully in tune with their mental state. You're welcome to have a different view, but RaW, lore and such disagree with your stand. Monks, in most forms, have a synergy of mind, body and soul. That, to me (and WotC and many others, it would seem) would be more than reasonable for them to recognize SOMETHING was amiss. That same purity and unity is why they can shrug it off, using an action (and thus losing up to 4 strikes, which is not insignificant to Monks)
Putting a roll into the mix, I simply can't understand. You go on about Monks having an advantage on this, but Druids and Clerics, will in MANY cases, have a bigger advantage in resisting it due to high wisdom. As an add on to another feature? I see that we again disagree, in that by 7th level, the Monk has attained a high enough level of unity and balance that both the body and mind react faster than others to situations. Kind of a counter balance to burning a resource for skills other classes get for free? (Dodge/disengage/dash bonus actions)
From a balance perspective, the ability makes sense. From a lore standpoint it makes sense. From a spellcaster's standpoint it's OP and broken.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I say you want to negate the feature because you're asking for a roll (or were at one point) to counter it or recognize it. Your stand entirely dismisses the notion of the feature, where he/she is fully in tune with their mental state. You're welcome to have a different view, but RaW, lore and such disagree with your stand. Monks, in most forms, have a synergy of mind, body and soul. That, to me (and WotC and many others, it would seem) would be more than reasonable for them to recognize SOMETHING was amiss. That same purity and unity is why they can shrug it off, using an action (and thus losing up to 4 strikes, which is not insignificant to Monks)
Putting a roll into the mix, I simply can't understand. You go on about Monks having an advantage on this, but Druids and Clerics, will in MANY cases, have a bigger advantage in resisting it due to high wisdom. As an add on to another feature? I see that we again disagree, in that by 7th level, the Monk has attained a high enough level of unity and balance that both the body and mind react faster than others to situations. Kind of a counter balance to burning a resource for skills other classes get for free? (Dodge/disengage/dash bonus actions)
From a balance perspective, the ability makes sense. From a lore standpoint it makes sense. From a spellcaster's standpoint it's OP and broken.
RAW, most charm effects either do not let the monk know they are charmed, or otherwise force them to use their action on something other than stillness of mind. Lore isn't RaW.
So your complaint is that RaW is wrong, because the character wouldn't KNOW, and when I point out the lore, which drove the ability, you cite RaW? I am entirely confused now, as you started out by indicating RaW insists on Meta. I offered a handful of reasons why, referencing said lore that gave the Monk the ability, thus contributed to the RaW and now you dismiss the lore behind the rule because.....I don't know why. To be clear, outside of a passed save, NONE of the mind control effects have a big sign telling the character it's happening and the Monk has the ability (by losing his 4 strikes in that round) to break free from 2. Would you feel better if the condition wasn't charmed or frightened and a Monk tossed away an action to use the skill, and failed, because, let's say "Hold Person" isn't covered?
See a narrow minded approach CAN limit the negative potential of any ability. For the record, I have, on one occasion, pissed away an action, knowing as a player that it wouldn't work. My Monk, however, felt his joints lock up, assumed it was an attack of the mind (which it was) and employed his technique to try and shake it. No roll (maybe the DM should have offered me one, since I would have been entitled to it,. RaW, even though my character wanted to try something different)
It's nit-picking and entirely false to insist it is meta to be aware that someone is tinkering with your mind, when you have specifically trained to resist, repel and shake off such things. Same "debate" took place over Darkness and those who can cast Light knowing it should/would work. Training in something often means you are taught WHY you are picking up the skill.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
So your complaint is that RaW is wrong, because the character wouldn't KNOW, and when I point out the lore, which drove the ability, you cite RaW? I am entirely confused now, as you started out by indicating RaW insists on Meta. I offered a handful of reasons why, referencing said lore that gave the Monk the ability, thus contributed to the RaW and now you dismiss the lore behind the rule because.....I don't know why. To be clear, outside of a passed save, NONE of the mind control effects have a big sign telling the character it's happening and the Monk has the ability (by losing his 4 strikes in that round) to break free from 2. Would you feel better if the condition wasn't charmed or frightened and a Monk tossed away an action to use the skill, and failed, because, let's say "Hold Person" isn't covered?
See a narrow minded approach CAN limit the negative potential of any ability. For the record, I have, on one occasion, pissed away an action, knowing as a player that it wouldn't work. My Monk, however, felt his joints lock up, assumed it was an attack of the mind (which it was) and employed his technique to try and shake it. No roll (maybe the DM should have offered me one, since I would have been entitled to it,. RaW, even though my character wanted to try something different)
It's nit-picking and entirely false to insist it is meta to be aware that someone is tinkering with your mind, when you have specifically trained to resist, repel and shake off such things. Same "debate" took place over Darkness and those who can cast Light knowing it should/would work. Training in something often means you are taught WHY you are picking up the skill.
First off, you're talking to two different people, even if we both agree to some extent.
Im just looking at mind altering spells and and applying RAW to them:
Charm Person- you don't know you're charmed
Dominate Person- the charmed person follows order to the best of their ability (not purposefully breaking the charm), with an option for the caster to control their actions entirely.
Suggestion- doesn't even technically use the charmed condition
Friends- target doesn't know it was charmed until the spell ends
Crown of Madness- target must use its action to attack a target within range
Enthrall- doesn't technically use the charmed condition
Compulsion- doesn't use the charmed condition
Geas- can break it, but take 5d10 doing so
Modify Memory- incapacitates the character
Mass suggestion- doesn't use the charmed condition
Many monster effects that employ the charmed condition similarly give the caster control over the character's ability to use actions. I would agree, if the spell doesn't say the target is unaware of the charm, the monk should be assumed to know something is up.
My contention is that it just generally isn't that useful even when the monk knows. They might not be free to use their action, or the effect is only charm-like.
For fear effects, its a decent ability. For charm, its not actually all that useful.
I say you want to negate the feature because you're asking for a roll (or were at one point) to counter it or recognize it. Your stand entirely dismisses the notion of the feature, where he/she is fully in tune with their mental state. You're welcome to have a different view, but RaW, lore and such disagree with your stand.
No they don't; the ability says you can use your action to end one effect, not that you are aware of when such effects exist upon you.
You are talking about RAW but ignoring that charm effects also have RAW, as do spells and other effects, and in RAW your character is not automatically aware a spell or ability has been used upon them (aside from the obvious, like being blown up); even if there are visual indicators, your DM can (and should) ask you to make a Perception or Arcana check to actually spot and recognise anything subtle, which most charm effects are. The whole point of charm effects is that the target does not know they are charmed, in fact in many cases they don't even know that they were charmed even once the effect ends, only effects that explicitly say they become aware of being charmed cause that to happen, such as Charm Person.
Being charmed means that your character's thinking and behaviour have been changed; sometimes in minor ways, sometimes in major or explicit ways, but in all cases if you just ignore what the charm does to your character then you're choosing to ignore RAW for the charm.
Putting a roll into the mix, I simply can't understand. You go on about Monks having an advantage on this, but Druids and Clerics, will in MANY cases, have a bigger advantage in resisting it due to high wisdom.
Skill checks are how characters learn about what's going on around (or in this case within) them; you make a perception check to spot something, investigation check to find clues, and you use insight to spot when someone is behaving strangely or lying to you.
Monks also should have high Wisdom; we are dependent upon it for our Unarmored Defence and save DC; while it's weird we don't get Wisdom save proficiency as standard, we do eventually get proficiency in all saving throws anyway (Diamond Soul), meanwhile if you take Insight proficiency then you'll have strong rolls for any additional insight checks you fish for.
And to be clear, these rolls are not rolls to see if the ability works, these are rolls to detect that you are charmed; any character could theoretically do this if they wanted to, but only Monks and Berserkers can then use a successful check to actually do something about it*, as other characters would simply remain charmed (and probably just rationalise it somehow).
*Actually I keep forgetting about casters who can use Dispel Magic (for effects specifically caused by spells) or Greater Restoration, but they need to have these and be able to cast them.
As an add on to another feature?
Rogues get Evasion at 7th level and nothing else (except another d6 in sneak attack, but that's only an extra 3.5 damage per turn at most), Monks get Evasion, Stillness of Mind and another Ki point.
Immunity to conditions is very rare on player characters; we don't get full immunity to anything until 10th level, and that's just disease and poison and is our main 10th level feature on its own; what you are looking for is basically also immunity, on top of an already very good 7th level feature.
Kind of a counter balance to burning a resource for skills other classes get for free? (Dodge/disengage/dash bonus actions)
Other classes, specifically Rogues, can only dash, disengage, or hide for free; Monks are less likely to need to dash, especially at higher levels, as we get more raw speed than other classes, so really Rogues can only disengage or hide for free by comparison, and that's as their major second level class feature. While we need to spend Ki to do some of the same things, we can also do more with our bonus action, including dodge which is an extremely powerful defensive ability, or throw out three attacks in a single turn at 2nd level, or four attacks in a turn from 5th, and that's ignoring bonus actions added by sub-classes (most have at least one).
I feel like you're trying to justify an overly strong interpretation of this feature because you think Monks somehow deserve it because you incorrectly perceive their earlier levels as being weak, but they're actually a really good class early on, you just don't get to a lot of Ki power use until you've gained a few more Ki points and no longer have to ration them quite so carefully, and there are certain styles of play that don't favour some of the Monk's features quite so well (but that's more of an issue of how your DM designs their combat encounters).
Plus you're still ignoring that Stillness of Mind with a check to first realise you are charmed is a very good ability; it means that Monks have more opportunities than other classes to end charm/fear effects, because as I've already said, we essentially have as many ways to end charm as we can invent within the constrains of the effect. Odd behaviour and odd requests from the charmer, appeals from (former) friends and so-on can all be used as additional triggers, at which point you can simply use the ability to end the effect. This is still massively better than other classes who have to just go along with being charmed until they are asked to do something suicidal or the time runs out.
Geas is actually an especially weird case, as you still don't know that you're charmed, so the pyschic damage seems to just be a deterrent against finding a way to go against the command, i.e- if the caster fails to persuade you of something and you actively refuse, but you're still charmed by them even once you take the damage (and still not aware that you are, though could argue a suspicion after suffering an exruciating brain freeze).
It's one of those spells that really should have another paragraph to make its intention clear as the RAW is super vague; it's a very free-form spell where the command could be "you should walk to work instead of talking the carriage" which most DM's would probably just allow (no checks, so no chance of taking the damage), vs. "do what I tell you" in which case my groups tend to use opposed rolls for each sub-command, so the target succeeding on one of those then has the option to refuse that sub-command (and take the damage). Managing to refuse doesn't necessarily mean you're aware of the charm effect, though it could be argued depending upon the exact request (if the caster asked a lot and it seemed strange that they would expect you to do it).
A Monk with Stillness of Mind could still try to fish for additional unopposed Insight checks though, since the opposed social rolls are stacked against them due to being charmed, so the Monk's odds of succeeding are a lot better if they can justify a check of that kind (odd behaviour from the caster, strange requests etc., since the caster is not viewed as a friend you can be quite broad with what seems strange).
"You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the actions you choose, and doesn't do anything that you don't allow it to do."
So the monk simply could be told to attack their friends and they cannot use an action to end the charm effect.
I say you want to negate the feature because you're asking for a roll (or were at one point) to counter it or recognize it. Your stand entirely dismisses the notion of the feature, where he/she is fully in tune with their mental state. You're welcome to have a different view, but RaW, lore and such disagree with your stand.
No they don't; the ability says you can use your action to end one effect, not that you are aware of when such effects exist upon you.
You are talking about RAW but ignoring that charm effects also have RAW, as do spells and other effects, and in RAW your character is not automatically aware a spell or ability has been used upon them (aside from the obvious, like being blown up); even if there are visual indicators, your DM can (and should) ask you to make a Perception or Arcana check to actually spot and recognise anything subtle, which most charm effects are. The whole point of charm effects is that the target does not know they are charmed, in fact in many cases they don't even know that they were charmed even once the effect ends, only effects that explicitly say they become aware of being charmed cause that to happen, such as Charm Person.
Being charmed means that your character's thinking and behaviour have been changed; sometimes in minor ways, sometimes in major or explicit ways, but in all cases if you just ignore what the charm does to your character then you're choosing to ignore RAW for the charm.
Putting a roll into the mix, I simply can't understand. You go on about Monks having an advantage on this, but Druids and Clerics, will in MANY cases, have a bigger advantage in resisting it due to high wisdom.
Skill checks are how characters learn about what's going on around (or in this case within) them; you make a perception check to spot something, investigation check to find clues, and you use insight to spot when someone is behaving strangely or lying to you.
Monks also should have high Wisdom; we are dependent upon it for our Unarmored Defence and save DC; while it's weird we don't get Wisdom save proficiency as standard, we do eventually get proficiency in all saving throws anyway (Diamond Soul), meanwhile if you take Insight proficiency then you'll have strong rolls for any additional insight checks you fish for.
And to be clear, these rolls are not rolls to see if the ability works, these are rolls to detect that you are charmed; any character could theoretically do this if they wanted to, but only Monks and Berserkers can then use a successful check to actually do something about it*, as other characters would simply remain charmed (and probably just rationalise it somehow).
*Actually I keep forgetting about casters who can use Dispel Magic (for effects specifically caused by spells) or Greater Restoration, but they need to have these and be able to cast them.
As an add on to another feature?
Rogues get Evasion at 7th level and nothing else (except another d6 in sneak attack, but that's only an extra 3.5 damage per turn at most), Monks get Evasion, Stillness of Mind and another Ki point.
Immunity to conditions is very rare on player characters; we don't get full immunity to anything until 10th level, and that's just disease and poison and is our main 10th level feature on its own; what you are looking for is basically also immunity, on top of an already very good 7th level feature.
Kind of a counter balance to burning a resource for skills other classes get for free? (Dodge/disengage/dash bonus actions)
Other classes, specifically Rogues, can only dash, disengage, or hide for free; Monks are less likely to need to dash, especially at higher levels, as we get more raw speed than other classes, so really Rogues can only disengage or hide for free by comparison, and that's as their major second level class feature. While we need to spend Ki to do some of the same things, we can also do more with our bonus action, including dodge which is an extremely powerful defensive ability, or throw out three attacks in a single turn at 2nd level, or four attacks in a turn from 5th, and that's ignoring bonus actions added by sub-classes (most have at least one).
I feel like you're trying to justify an overly strong interpretation of this feature because you think Monks somehow deserve it because you incorrectly perceive their earlier levels as being weak, but they're actually a really good class early on, you just don't get to a lot of Ki power use until you've gained a few more Ki points and no longer have to ration them quite so carefully, and there are certain styles of play that don't favour some of the Monk's features quite so well (but that's more of an issue of how your DM designs their combat encounters).
Plus you're still ignoring that Stillness of Mind with a check to first realise you are charmed is a very good ability; it means that Monks have more opportunities than other classes to end charm/fear effects, because as I've already said, we essentially have as many ways to end charm as we can invent within the constrains of the effect. Odd behaviour and odd requests from the charmer, appeals from (former) friends and so-on can all be used as additional triggers, at which point you can simply use the ability to end the effect. This is still massively better than other classes who have to just go along with being charmed until they are asked to do something suicidal or the time runs out.
Geas is actually an especially weird case, as you still don't know that you're charmed, so the pyschic damage seems to just be a deterrent against finding a way to go against the command, i.e- if the caster fails to persuade you of something and you actively refuse, but you're still charmed by them even once you take the damage (and still not aware that you are, though could argue a suspicion after suffering an exruciating brain freeze).
It's one of those spells that really should have another paragraph to make its intention clear as the RAW is super vague; it's a very free-form spell where the command could be "you should walk to work instead of talking the carriage" which most DM's would probably just allow (no checks, so no chance of taking the damage), vs. "do what I tell you" in which case my groups tend to use opposed rolls for each sub-command, so the target succeeding on one of those then has the option to refuse that sub-command (and take the damage). Managing to refuse doesn't necessarily mean you're aware of the charm effect, though it could be argued depending upon the exact request (if the caster asked a lot and it seemed strange that they would expect you to do it).
A Monk with Stillness of Mind could still try to fish for additional unopposed Insight checks though, since the opposed social rolls are stacked against them due to being charmed, so the Monk's odds of succeeding are a lot better if they can justify a check of that kind (odd behaviour from the caster, strange requests etc., since the caster is not viewed as a friend you can be quite broad with what seems strange).
Nothing in Geas says the target isn't aware they are charmed. The very fact that the target can resist and take psychic damage pretty heavily implies that they are aware they are charmed but the compulsion still holds them.
Like in the Jessica Jones tv show where David Tenant's character could make people do whatever he told them too. They are aware that they are being forced to do things, even if they are not able to resist (unlike geas).
All told, the ability isn't OP because of the numerous downsides the character still feels/experiences from charm effects. It effectively stops one round of action from the Monk, and a handful of "charm-like" effects are not dispelled with it. Also to note, comparing the Rogue ability gain at that level to the Monk is a good example. the statement that the Rogue gets nothing else, EXCEPT, shows it DOES get something else, which nullifies that part. Regardless, each table is going to have it's interpretation of how and why this ability works, either following RaW and accepting some reasoning for WHY it's like that, or home brewing it, so it better fits their wishes.
I looked at Geas and I find that particular spell to be a VERY interesting one to try and rule on. Unless specifically told to NOT dispel it, then using the ability to stop it MIGHT not trigger the damage. The trigger for damage is to directly oppose what you've been told, so there is a bit of grey on that. To me, if the DM hit me with the damage for using the ability, I would accept it, since it's a little less than clear (fringe situation) I would also (and more happily, lol) accept that the feature doesn't go against the Geas and simply breaks me free with no penalty.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Nothing in Geas says the target isn't aware they are charmed. The very fact that the target can resist and take psychic damage pretty heavily implies that they are aware they are charmed but the compulsion still holds them.
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.
The general rules on spells (under Targets) states:
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.
The only component to Geas is verbal, but unless the character is very obviously reciting magic words (which the spell doesn't require them to) then it could just as easily be woven into normal conversation, they just need to include the command somewhere at the end.
But being aware of being charmed isn't the only way to act contrary to a command, as Geas does not force you to view the caster as a friend, it only prevents you from attacking them; you could even argue that you're still aware that they are your enemy (unless their command tells you otherwise), and even then, your DM may ask for opposed rolls to see whether the caster can convince you everything they command, and if that fails then that is when you get to resist by refusing to do as they say.
However characters with other abilities may also attempt to resist by becoming aware of being charmed, or more generally of something not being right, which is how you would use Stillness of Mind, Mindless Rage, Dispel Magic or Greater Restoration to get out of it.
All told, the ability isn't OP because of the numerous downsides the character still feels/experiences from charm effects. It effectively stops one round of action from the Monk
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.
the statement that the Rogue gets nothing else, EXCEPT, shows it DOES get something else, which nullifies that part.
No it doesn't, because all they get is Evasion plus a small damage bump. A Monk is getting Evasion, plus an additional Ki point, plus a full bonus feature. Sneak attack damage progression is equivalent to a Monk's Ki point and martial arts progression, so Stillness of Mind is a full additional feature on top of what the Rogue gets at the same level; as a limited feature that makes sense, but as basically "I choose to have immunity" it does not, because immunity is more equivalent to an entire class feature on its own.
If we wanted to go off on a tangent about Monk balance I wouldn't even have Stillness of Mind at 7th, I'd probably drop the wall/water running (Unarmored Movement Improvement) down to 7th, drop Purity of Body to 9th, and move Stillness of Mind to 10th as true condition immunity. Would mean we'd basically have two levels of gaining condition immunities, but it makes sense for a Monk to be more physically oriented initially and then hit a spiritual tipping point later IMO. But that's academic, as we've got what we've got.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Actually I'd argue the opposite in the case of Mindless Rage, because why wouldn't they use it given that order? Mindless Rage is an added benefit to Rage, but it's not the primary purpose of Rage; you Rage to do more damage and take more punishment, so in a combat situation it's actually potentially a better feature as you have a lot more leeway to trigger it as it's not an ability that requires any awareness of being charmed, as the primary purpose of raging is not to end a charm effect.
I think the more relevant question for a Berserker is wether such a compulsion would force them into a Frenzied Rage, as this would actively make them better at beating up their allies, and while it would inadvertently snap them out of the charm, they'd end up frenzied when they nay not want to be (due to the level of exhaustion they'll end up taking afterwards).
Mindless Rage also gives full immunity so long as the rage lasts, but then I think that's more in keeping with it being a full feature in its own right, whereas Stillness of Mind is just a bonus feature on top of Evasion, so it's understandable that it's more awkward/situational to use.
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 we assume PC's understand their abilities then it would not make sense to rage and get out of the compulsion. Especially since raging isn't necessary for a barbarian to attack the way drawing a weapon is.
The point is that a button to press to get out of being charmed when you are being compelled to do a thing is naturally off limits. It would directly contradict the compulsion to do a thing your character knows will end the compulsion early.
And this is another weird case where the Suggestion spell would keep working despite the use of Sillness of Mind, since it doesn't use the charm effect.
My point is you don't need any awareness of the charm in order to trigger Mindless Rage; you only need to justify why your character would Rage.
It still depends on the exact compulsion you're following as always, but anything generic like "attack your friends" gives you the leeway to do it, as the question you need to answer is, "if you had willingly chosen to attack your friends then what abilities would you use?" because simply initiating Rage may actually be too little, as you're compelling one character to fight 3+ characters of the same level, so the sensible thing for them to do is use everything at their disposal, not pull their punches. This is why I mention the potential to inadvertently trigger Frenzied Rage instead. Of course the situation would be different if the command were "attack your allies, but remain in control" or such, i.e- explicitly denying Rage.
You need to answer those types of questions no matter the class; for example, if a Fighter were the one charmed, they need to decide if, had they willingly chosen to do what they're doing, would they use action surge to try to take out an ally faster? A charmed Monk needs to decide if they would spend Ki points for a Flurry of Blows, Stunning Strikes etc. Most DMs will probably let you fudge it a bit and basically "work to rule" by doing the bare minimum to qualify for the task, but if you're playing into the spirit of the charm effect then you should really do what you would do if confronting 3+ enemies of your level on your own (or with only one ally or whatever).
This is why it's trickier with Stillness of Mind as you trigger it with the explicit intention of ending a charm effect (as that's all the ability does), so you need to justify how you're aware you are subject to one, and why you would choose to use it given any limitations/directives you were put under.
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.
One possibility is what I did with my monk, make it part of your daily meditations. Add to that using it whenever your allies are fighting and any time someone tells you not to use it.
The other option is to treat it like a few other mechanics (luck, inspiration, etc) where it's an option for the player rather than the character.
Ties directly to what your vision of the skill represents. My take is that the Monk has become intimately attuned to his own mind and mental state. The moment anything interferes with the normal "vibrations" of his mental state, he's aware of it and has the ability to shrug off Charmed and Frightened effects. I don't see it as metagaming, because my interpretation is that the Monk is so in tune with his own psyche that any interruption of that flow is noticed. Some things he can brush off, others, he recognizes, but is powerless to stop (Command as an example)
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Oh, if that is why you insisted... yeah, no i agree. It totally is metagaming. I just do not consider metagaming inherently bad.
Daily routine's a good one, but "whenever your allies are fighting" seems a bit meta-gamey as well, because unless your Monk regularly wastes an action to use the ability when they don't need to then it's hard to argue that that's normal behaviour for them, and the definition of allies may change depending upon the charm.
Likewise with being told not to use it; the point of a charm effect is that a request from the caster may seem like the most reasonable thing in the world, and they have advantage on social checks to persuade you, so unless they whiff the rolls or you roll really well for opposed Insight that feels meta-gamey as well unless your character has a well established habit of doing the exact opposite of what their trusted friends ask of them?
Often the thing with charms is extent; if an enemy just asks you fetch them some tea, then you should probably go with it (unless your character's definining feature is that they never do anything for anybody), but if they ask you to stab your friend in the eye socket, then maybe ask to roll to see if you think that's a reasonable request first.
If that's what the feature was intended to represent it'd be straight up immunity to those conditions; the reason charm spells are dangerous is because they alter your psyche so you perceive allies as enemies, enemies as friends etc., if you play the charm spell as they're intended then you wouldn't automatically notice anything is wrong because the spell is intended to warp your perceptions so that the change seems normal. To shrug it off a roll should definitely be called for in most cases, as that's how we test whether characters notice things; you can't just choose to notice things. Doing so without a roll is almost always going to be meta-gaming.
And bear in mind, we're talking about effects that near universally require that you first fail a Wisdom saving throw, which Monks are already good at, to expect them to be basically immune without being granted immunity in addition goes a bit far IMO, and I say this as a Monk player, especially as that may be in addition to the various boosts to saving throws that parties have at their disposal. And again, this is a feature that is in addition to Evasion, which is already a strong feature, so expecting it to be basically immunity is expecting a lot, as other characters that get Evasion do not get that (or similar).
Ultimately it's an action, so you need to choose to act, and in a way that makes sense within the charm, because the charm has taken effect by this point whether you like it or not; but there are plenty of ways to justify it, or to justify a check to make it possible. Enemies may give commands that are hard to follow, or contradictory, or maybe your allies are trying to get through to you etc., plus some effects have built in opportunities to save against them anyway. But because you have Stillness of Mind, you are gaining additional opportunities to end the effect, because any excuse you can come up with to question the compulsion can give you room to then use the ability; so while your allies can only roll the saves or hope for the conditions that they're given in the effect's description, you've got as many opportunities as you can invent, and if one roll succeeds, then you can use your action to end the effect before anyone else would. I mean, that's just part of the fun, otherwise you're just "nope"-ing an enemy's charm ability (or spent resources on a spell) which is boring IMO; beat them at their own game, don't just refuse to play 😝
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.
<shrug> We'll need to agree to disagree on it, I guess. You want to negate a class feature whose name indicates a oneness of mind and put them in a similar note to everyone else, which might work best for your table. I want to use the feature (on either side of the table) to demonstrate a more direct and intimate connection between thought, consciousness and spiritual harmony. Sure, stick the metagaming tag on, if it suits, but to recognize something is going on in your head that's not normal, and being able to focus (brief meditation perhaps) to cleanse certain effects, sounds VERY much like a Monk ability to me. Anything else, Keen Mind should also give the same benefit for. To suggest a roll should be made (like all other classes?) is to demean the meditation techniques and how they would affect the Monk.
Nah, I don't buy that a class feature should just be balled up into everyone else's basic abilities and I don't buy that someone who meditates to attain that unity of mind, body and spirit would have their mind messed with and NOT realize it. 2 effects they CAN shrug off once noticing it, costing an action, is more than reasonable. By that mentality, nobody can or should be immune to any effects, as it is simply saying "nope" to their poison, or disease, or sleep spell.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The definition of allies changing because of the charm is rather the point. I didn't mean any time my allies are fighting enemies, I meant when allies are fighting each other, not counting times when one of them obviously just got hit by a spell. On the rare occasions this happens without magic, I do waste a turn trying to clear my head.
Well there's a hell of a straw-man, as I want nothing of the kind.
The feature requires an action, so it's not automatic, and nor are characters automatically aware that they have been charmed; you can't just choose to be aware, just as you can't just choose to be able to see invisible enemies etc. The whole point of charm spells is that they change your character's perception and/or behaviour, so everything you do while under the influence of one must be done in a way that makes sense given the new constraints.
And as I have already pointed out multiple times, doing it this way does not make the feature useless; while charmed any character has the option to roll to see if they are aware they are charmed, the player can try to spot contradictions from the caster, can be convinced something is wrong by other party members etc., however becoming aware of the charm doesn't matter for most other characters, because they can't do anything about it. However a Monk with Stillness of Mind, once they become aware they might be charmed can simply end the effect, but you need that trigger.
You accuse me of wanting to negate the feature, but what you seem to want is to negate all charm and fear effects, despite not actually having immunity, and on a class that is already fairly resistant to them in the first place, and by purposefully metagaming the feature to do it.
I'm currently a Monk player and see no reason to just "nope" an entire category of effects; we're not immune to magic, we have a tool that allows us to overcome it once there is reasonable doubt, which is something that no other class gets with the exception of Berserker Barbarians who have their stronger Mindless Rage ability (but then that's their entire 6th level feature, not an add-on alongside something else).
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.
I say you want to negate the feature because you're asking for a roll (or were at one point) to counter it or recognize it. Your stand entirely dismisses the notion of the feature, where he/she is fully in tune with their mental state. You're welcome to have a different view, but RaW, lore and such disagree with your stand. Monks, in most forms, have a synergy of mind, body and soul. That, to me (and WotC and many others, it would seem) would be more than reasonable for them to recognize SOMETHING was amiss. That same purity and unity is why they can shrug it off, using an action (and thus losing up to 4 strikes, which is not insignificant to Monks)
Putting a roll into the mix, I simply can't understand. You go on about Monks having an advantage on this, but Druids and Clerics, will in MANY cases, have a bigger advantage in resisting it due to high wisdom. As an add on to another feature? I see that we again disagree, in that by 7th level, the Monk has attained a high enough level of unity and balance that both the body and mind react faster than others to situations. Kind of a counter balance to burning a resource for skills other classes get for free? (Dodge/disengage/dash bonus actions)
From a balance perspective, the ability makes sense. From a lore standpoint it makes sense. From a spellcaster's standpoint it's OP and broken.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
RAW, most charm effects either do not let the monk know they are charmed, or otherwise force them to use their action on something other than stillness of mind. Lore isn't RaW.
So your complaint is that RaW is wrong, because the character wouldn't KNOW, and when I point out the lore, which drove the ability, you cite RaW? I am entirely confused now, as you started out by indicating RaW insists on Meta. I offered a handful of reasons why, referencing said lore that gave the Monk the ability, thus contributed to the RaW and now you dismiss the lore behind the rule because.....I don't know why. To be clear, outside of a passed save, NONE of the mind control effects have a big sign telling the character it's happening and the Monk has the ability (by losing his 4 strikes in that round) to break free from 2. Would you feel better if the condition wasn't charmed or frightened and a Monk tossed away an action to use the skill, and failed, because, let's say "Hold Person" isn't covered?
See a narrow minded approach CAN limit the negative potential of any ability. For the record, I have, on one occasion, pissed away an action, knowing as a player that it wouldn't work. My Monk, however, felt his joints lock up, assumed it was an attack of the mind (which it was) and employed his technique to try and shake it. No roll (maybe the DM should have offered me one, since I would have been entitled to it,. RaW, even though my character wanted to try something different)
It's nit-picking and entirely false to insist it is meta to be aware that someone is tinkering with your mind, when you have specifically trained to resist, repel and shake off such things. Same "debate" took place over Darkness and those who can cast Light knowing it should/would work. Training in something often means you are taught WHY you are picking up the skill.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
First off, you're talking to two different people, even if we both agree to some extent.
Im just looking at mind altering spells and and applying RAW to them:
Charm Person- you don't know you're charmed
Dominate Person- the charmed person follows order to the best of their ability (not purposefully breaking the charm), with an option for the caster to control their actions entirely.
Suggestion- doesn't even technically use the charmed condition
Friends- target doesn't know it was charmed until the spell ends
Crown of Madness- target must use its action to attack a target within range
Enthrall- doesn't technically use the charmed condition
Compulsion- doesn't use the charmed condition
Geas- can break it, but take 5d10 doing so
Modify Memory- incapacitates the character
Mass suggestion- doesn't use the charmed condition
Many monster effects that employ the charmed condition similarly give the caster control over the character's ability to use actions. I would agree, if the spell doesn't say the target is unaware of the charm, the monk should be assumed to know something is up.
My contention is that it just generally isn't that useful even when the monk knows. They might not be free to use their action, or the effect is only charm-like.
For fear effects, its a decent ability. For charm, its not actually all that useful.
No they don't; the ability says you can use your action to end one effect, not that you are aware of when such effects exist upon you.
You are talking about RAW but ignoring that charm effects also have RAW, as do spells and other effects, and in RAW your character is not automatically aware a spell or ability has been used upon them (aside from the obvious, like being blown up); even if there are visual indicators, your DM can (and should) ask you to make a Perception or Arcana check to actually spot and recognise anything subtle, which most charm effects are. The whole point of charm effects is that the target does not know they are charmed, in fact in many cases they don't even know that they were charmed even once the effect ends, only effects that explicitly say they become aware of being charmed cause that to happen, such as Charm Person.
Being charmed means that your character's thinking and behaviour have been changed; sometimes in minor ways, sometimes in major or explicit ways, but in all cases if you just ignore what the charm does to your character then you're choosing to ignore RAW for the charm.
Rogues get Evasion at 7th level and nothing else (except another d6 in sneak attack, but that's only an extra 3.5 damage per turn at most), Monks get Evasion, Stillness of Mind and another Ki point.
Immunity to conditions is very rare on player characters; we don't get full immunity to anything until 10th level, and that's just disease and poison and is our main 10th level feature on its own; what you are looking for is basically also immunity, on top of an already very good 7th level feature.
Oath of Devotion paladins can prevent themselves and allies within 10 feet from being charmed (but not frightened) but this is their entire 7th level feature. It's also not full immunity, as it only seems intended to suspend being charmed while in the aura, not remove the effect.
Other classes, specifically Rogues, can only dash, disengage, or hide for free; Monks are less likely to need to dash, especially at higher levels, as we get more raw speed than other classes, so really Rogues can only disengage or hide for free by comparison, and that's as their major second level class feature. While we need to spend Ki to do some of the same things, we can also do more with our bonus action, including dodge which is an extremely powerful defensive ability, or throw out three attacks in a single turn at 2nd level, or four attacks in a turn from 5th, and that's ignoring bonus actions added by sub-classes (most have at least one).
I feel like you're trying to justify an overly strong interpretation of this feature because you think Monks somehow deserve it because you incorrectly perceive their earlier levels as being weak, but they're actually a really good class early on, you just don't get to a lot of Ki power use until you've gained a few more Ki points and no longer have to ration them quite so carefully, and there are certain styles of play that don't favour some of the Monk's features quite so well (but that's more of an issue of how your DM designs their combat encounters).
Plus you're still ignoring that Stillness of Mind with a check to first realise you are charmed is a very good ability; it means that Monks have more opportunities than other classes to end charm/fear effects, because as I've already said, we essentially have as many ways to end charm as we can invent within the constrains of the effect. Odd behaviour and odd requests from the charmer, appeals from (former) friends and so-on can all be used as additional triggers, at which point you can simply use the ability to end the effect. This is still massively better than other classes who have to just go along with being charmed until they are asked to do something suicidal or the time runs out.
Geas is actually an especially weird case, as you still don't know that you're charmed, so the pyschic damage seems to just be a deterrent against finding a way to go against the command, i.e- if the caster fails to persuade you of something and you actively refuse, but you're still charmed by them even once you take the damage (and still not aware that you are, though could argue a suspicion after suffering an exruciating brain freeze).
It's one of those spells that really should have another paragraph to make its intention clear as the RAW is super vague; it's a very free-form spell where the command could be "you should walk to work instead of talking the carriage" which most DM's would probably just allow (no checks, so no chance of taking the damage), vs. "do what I tell you" in which case my groups tend to use opposed rolls for each sub-command, so the target succeeding on one of those then has the option to refuse that sub-command (and take the damage). Managing to refuse doesn't necessarily mean you're aware of the charm effect, though it could be argued depending upon the exact request (if the caster asked a lot and it seemed strange that they would expect you to do it).
A Monk with Stillness of Mind could still try to fish for additional unopposed Insight checks though, since the opposed social rolls are stacked against them due to being charmed, so the Monk's odds of succeeding are a lot better if they can justify a check of that kind (odd behaviour from the caster, strange requests etc., since the caster is not viewed as a friend you can be quite broad with what seems strange).
I actually posted on the Geas page about the various issues with the spell and how I tend to rule them.
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.
Does a dominate spell even let you use an action?
"You can use your action to take total and precise control of the target. Until the end of your next turn, the creature takes only the actions you choose, and doesn't do anything that you don't allow it to do."
So the monk simply could be told to attack their friends and they cannot use an action to end the charm effect.
Nothing in Geas says the target isn't aware they are charmed. The very fact that the target can resist and take psychic damage pretty heavily implies that they are aware they are charmed but the compulsion still holds them.
Like in the Jessica Jones tv show where David Tenant's character could make people do whatever he told them too. They are aware that they are being forced to do things, even if they are not able to resist (unlike geas).
All told, the ability isn't OP because of the numerous downsides the character still feels/experiences from charm effects. It effectively stops one round of action from the Monk, and a handful of "charm-like" effects are not dispelled with it. Also to note, comparing the Rogue ability gain at that level to the Monk is a good example. the statement that the Rogue gets nothing else, EXCEPT, shows it DOES get something else, which nullifies that part. Regardless, each table is going to have it's interpretation of how and why this ability works, either following RaW and accepting some reasoning for WHY it's like that, or home brewing it, so it better fits their wishes.
I looked at Geas and I find that particular spell to be a VERY interesting one to try and rule on. Unless specifically told to NOT dispel it, then using the ability to stop it MIGHT not trigger the damage. The trigger for damage is to directly oppose what you've been told, so there is a bit of grey on that. To me, if the DM hit me with the damage for using the ability, I would accept it, since it's a little less than clear (fringe situation) I would also (and more happily, lol) accept that the feature doesn't go against the Geas and simply breaks me free with no penalty.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
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.
No it doesn't, because all they get is Evasion plus a small damage bump. A Monk is getting Evasion, plus an additional Ki point, plus a full bonus feature. Sneak attack damage progression is equivalent to a Monk's Ki point and martial arts progression, so Stillness of Mind is a full additional feature on top of what the Rogue gets at the same level; as a limited feature that makes sense, but as basically "I choose to have immunity" it does not, because immunity is more equivalent to an entire class feature on its own.
If we wanted to go off on a tangent about Monk balance I wouldn't even have Stillness of Mind at 7th, I'd probably drop the wall/water running (Unarmored Movement Improvement) down to 7th, drop Purity of Body to 9th, and move Stillness of Mind to 10th as true condition immunity. Would mean we'd basically have two levels of gaining condition immunities, but it makes sense for a Monk to be more physically oriented initially and then hit a spiritual tipping point later IMO. But that's academic, as we've got what we've got.
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.
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.
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.