My glamour bard took these spells and used a third level charm person followed by Catnap to pretty much end an encounter before it began.
Would you say that this combo was legitimate?
The ruling would be that with some talking, charmed npc's can become willing creatures for the catnap spell due to their seeing you as a friendly acquaintance
I guess it is fine from a lenient DM. I wouldn't really rule this way because I'd imagine that most reasonable people cannot be persuaded to allow themselves to take a nap while they're in the middle of something else most of the time by a "friendly acquaintance." If a work colleague of mine asked me to take a nap in the middle of the day, I'd probably wonder what they were up to and that would make me hesitant.
I think it's one of those things where you can really lean on your player to make a case for why this should work. And if they make a good case... then go for it.
I guess it is fine from a lenient DM. I wouldn't really rule this way because I'd imagine that most reasonable people cannot be persuaded to allow themselves to take a nap while they're in the middle of something else most of the time by a "friendly acquaintance." If a work colleague of mine asked me to take a nap in the middle of the day, I'd probably wonder what they were up to and that would make me hesitant.
I think explaining how the spell works... that it heals injuries and gives a boost of energy akin to taking a 1 hour break in just 10 minutes... might reasonably convince someone that it's worth their time.
It would have to be a very convincing argument to let a "friendly acquaintance" put you to sleep via magic. I mean - I personally wouldn't let anyone but my absolute best friends put me to sleep via magic.
They'd be putting themselves in an incredibly vulnerable position with a "friendly acquaintance" and a bunch of other people they've never met.
If they had something to gain out of a short rest, I don't know that they'd be any more suspicious than a party member would ordinarily be when offered a Catnap. But if you're trying to Catnap an uninjured NPC with no spell slots to regain, I don't think the DM would be out of line to politely decline the opportunity.
Yeah, I'm definitely on Emmber's side for this. There is a big difference between the charmed condition and being magically compelled to do something that otherwise seems like a very bad idea.
"Hey friend, my party is about to do some very bad things, and if you don't let me put you to sleep, I might not be able to stop them from hurting you too! Can you please just take a Catnap so that I can spare you that?"
"Hey friend, you look a little tired/wounded/low on spell slots. Things could get a little crazy later, why don't you take a quick power-Catnap while I keep lookout, so that we're nice and fresh for whatever comes next?"
"Look bud, I have to cast this spell on you, and I can't really go into why that is or what it'll do... but I promise it won't hurt you, everything will be ok. I know how that sounds, but come on, you can trust me, we're friends right?"
"Lol hey Chad, you know what would be hillarious? There's this cool trick I know, just look into my eyes and relax and go with it, you're not going to believe this shit, you're gonna feel amazing afterwards!"
Some of that would require Persuasion checks, with DCs dependent on how gullible the target is.
It's an interesting spell combination, but man do people need to get it through their heads that Charm Person isn't Dominate Person. Two massively different effects, and Charm does not and never will substitute for Dominate. Charm can be quite useful, but it's a double-edged sword on top of only being a first-level ability.
The way a DM can play charm person strikes me as a lot like the way a DM can play illusions spells. If you're looking for a reason to put the brakes on a player's idea, the rules give a lot leeway for shutting it down. If you want to embrace the creativity of the players, the rules give a lot of leeway for that as well.
I'd have to go with no. While Charm Person makes the target a friendly acquaintance, that still makes the rest of the party viewed as hostiles. Nobody is going to volunteer to nap in the presence of hostiles or strangers.
Trying Catnap is avoiding the dice roll limits of Sleep.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I don't see treating Charm Person as a charm and not a dominate as putting the brakes on a player. I see it as requiring them to be a little more creative "I cast Charm Person and end the encounter with brain control".
Heh. If a positive spin is needed, then Charm Person is the spell that sets the stage and gets one a receptive audience. it's then up to the player to offer a performance worthy of praise.
Investing two spell slots in putting a single creature to sleep is a lot more time and resource intensive than just murder-hoboing that creature, and is predicated on a failed save to set up the combo (something that Sleep bypasses). I don't think it's unbalanced to allow a level 1 and level 3 spell over 2+ rounds to approximate the effect of one level 1 spell, with no need to get petty about Persuasion checks.
As TexasDevin says, it's the easiest thing in the world to just say no to your players, but is that the sort of DM you want to be? Opening the door to creative play with "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." is a tried and true foundation of collaborative storytelling for a reason.
Persuasion is persuasion, not mind control, and keeping that distinction doesn't break the charmed condition or make it useless. Just take a look at the arguments on these forums: most people cannot even be persuaded by the facts of the game most of the time, let alone most attempts at persuasive arguments based on those rules. Think about yourself right now? Is this argument persuading you? If not then that really ought to give you pause about what persuasion should really net you in the game. I don't think that having things that you simply can't charm out of other people is out of line with anything in collaborative story telling -- after all you are trying to tell a story, and unbelievable elements break that story.
What is so important about putting the person to sleep in this situation anyway? If you've already charmed him, why couldn't you simply persuade him to take some course of action that poses less foreseeable risk to him rather than try to convince him to put himself into the most vulnerable position he can be in for 10 minutes?
There's nothing important about putting them to sleep, other than that the player has communicated that they want to blow a first level spell and a third level spell to accomplish peacefully putting the character to sleep instead of killing them. Must be pretty important to the player... and considering that they very likely could have accomplished the same thing already with the cast of a level 1 (5d8), 2 (7d8), or 3 (9d8) Sleep, or arguably a single 2nd-level Suggestion ("close your eyes and sleep, or at least pretend to be!"), I don't think it would be particularly problematic to say "yeah, if you can ask them in a way that sounds reasonable to a friend, go for it." You don't need to ask for a Persuasion check every time a character asks an NPC for anything ("Can I have bread with my ale, tavernkeep?" "Hmm, it's on the menu, but roll Persuasion."), and I think that after burning two rounds and two spells setting this up, it would be a dick move for the DM to introduce a random chance that it was all for naught in the eleventh hour.
But yes, I generally agree with the points that everyone is making that Charmed and Charm Person are not mind control, yada yada yada, I'm just saying that in the practical situation of a player casting these specific spells for this specific purpose, I don't think a DM should get their hackles up and jump to "no." It's creative.
sure You (charm person caster) and I are friendly acquaintances...
but there’s no way in hell I’d take a catnap. The people you’re with still have blood dripping from their weapons, 2 seconds ago they would have attacked me, and they are NOT my friendly acquaintances. And if you think it’s reasonable I fall asleep in front of them. You must have mistaken your spell as dominate person.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blank
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My glamour bard took these spells and used a third level charm person followed by Catnap to pretty much end an encounter before it began.
Would you say that this combo was legitimate?
The ruling would be that with some talking, charmed npc's can become willing creatures for the catnap spell due to their seeing you as a friendly acquaintance
I guess it is fine from a lenient DM. I wouldn't really rule this way because I'd imagine that most reasonable people cannot be persuaded to allow themselves to take a nap while they're in the middle of something else most of the time by a "friendly acquaintance." If a work colleague of mine asked me to take a nap in the middle of the day, I'd probably wonder what they were up to and that would make me hesitant.
I think it's one of those things where you can really lean on your player to make a case for why this should work. And if they make a good case... then go for it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think explaining how the spell works... that it heals injuries and gives a boost of energy akin to taking a 1 hour break in just 10 minutes... might reasonably convince someone that it's worth their time.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
It would have to be a very convincing argument to let a "friendly acquaintance" put you to sleep via magic. I mean - I personally wouldn't let anyone but my absolute best friends put me to sleep via magic.
They'd be putting themselves in an incredibly vulnerable position with a "friendly acquaintance" and a bunch of other people they've never met.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
If they had something to gain out of a short rest, I don't know that they'd be any more suspicious than a party member would ordinarily be when offered a Catnap. But if you're trying to Catnap an uninjured NPC with no spell slots to regain, I don't think the DM would be out of line to politely decline the opportunity.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah, I'm definitely on Emmber's side for this. There is a big difference between the charmed condition and being magically compelled to do something that otherwise seems like a very bad idea.
"Hey friend, my party is about to do some very bad things, and if you don't let me put you to sleep, I might not be able to stop them from hurting you too! Can you please just take a Catnap so that I can spare you that?"
"Hey friend, you look a little tired/wounded/low on spell slots. Things could get a little crazy later, why don't you take a quick power-Catnap while I keep lookout, so that we're nice and fresh for whatever comes next?"
"Look bud, I have to cast this spell on you, and I can't really go into why that is or what it'll do... but I promise it won't hurt you, everything will be ok. I know how that sounds, but come on, you can trust me, we're friends right?"
"Lol hey Chad, you know what would be hillarious? There's this cool trick I know, just look into my eyes and relax and go with it, you're not going to believe this shit, you're gonna feel amazing afterwards!"
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Some of that would require Persuasion checks, with DCs dependent on how gullible the target is.
It's an interesting spell combination, but man do people need to get it through their heads that Charm Person isn't Dominate Person. Two massively different effects, and Charm does not and never will substitute for Dominate. Charm can be quite useful, but it's a double-edged sword on top of only being a first-level ability.
Please do not contact or message me.
Just cast sleep?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The way a DM can play charm person strikes me as a lot like the way a DM can play illusions spells. If you're looking for a reason to put the brakes on a player's idea, the rules give a lot leeway for shutting it down. If you want to embrace the creativity of the players, the rules give a lot of leeway for that as well.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'd have to go with no. While Charm Person makes the target a friendly acquaintance, that still makes the rest of the party viewed as hostiles. Nobody is going to volunteer to nap in the presence of hostiles or strangers.
Trying Catnap is avoiding the dice roll limits of Sleep.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I don't see treating Charm Person as a charm and not a dominate as putting the brakes on a player. I see it as requiring them to be a little more creative "I cast Charm Person and end the encounter with brain control".
Heh. If a positive spin is needed, then Charm Person is the spell that sets the stage and gets one a receptive audience. it's then up to the player to offer a performance worthy of praise.
Please do not contact or message me.
Investing two spell slots in putting a single creature to sleep is a lot more time and resource intensive than just murder-hoboing that creature, and is predicated on a failed save to set up the combo (something that Sleep bypasses). I don't think it's unbalanced to allow a level 1 and level 3 spell over 2+ rounds to approximate the effect of one level 1 spell, with no need to get petty about Persuasion checks.
As TexasDevin says, it's the easiest thing in the world to just say no to your players, but is that the sort of DM you want to be? Opening the door to creative play with "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." is a tried and true foundation of collaborative storytelling for a reason.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Persuasion is persuasion, not mind control, and keeping that distinction doesn't break the charmed condition or make it useless. Just take a look at the arguments on these forums: most people cannot even be persuaded by the facts of the game most of the time, let alone most attempts at persuasive arguments based on those rules. Think about yourself right now? Is this argument persuading you? If not then that really ought to give you pause about what persuasion should really net you in the game. I don't think that having things that you simply can't charm out of other people is out of line with anything in collaborative story telling -- after all you are trying to tell a story, and unbelievable elements break that story.
What is so important about putting the person to sleep in this situation anyway? If you've already charmed him, why couldn't you simply persuade him to take some course of action that poses less foreseeable risk to him rather than try to convince him to put himself into the most vulnerable position he can be in for 10 minutes?
Maybe you just rolled really poorly.
Good point about the nap though. How about you cast charm person and then, "Hey my friend, this is going to get ugly. Why don't you sit this one out?"
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There is a certain irony in refusing to be persuaded that sometimes you just can’t be persuaded.
You could also just cast Suggestion.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
There's nothing important about putting them to sleep, other than that the player has communicated that they want to blow a first level spell and a third level spell to accomplish peacefully putting the character to sleep instead of killing them. Must be pretty important to the player... and considering that they very likely could have accomplished the same thing already with the cast of a level 1 (5d8), 2 (7d8), or 3 (9d8) Sleep, or arguably a single 2nd-level Suggestion ("close your eyes and sleep, or at least pretend to be!"), I don't think it would be particularly problematic to say "yeah, if you can ask them in a way that sounds reasonable to a friend, go for it." You don't need to ask for a Persuasion check every time a character asks an NPC for anything ("Can I have bread with my ale, tavernkeep?" "Hmm, it's on the menu, but roll Persuasion."), and I think that after burning two rounds and two spells setting this up, it would be a dick move for the DM to introduce a random chance that it was all for naught in the eleventh hour.
But yes, I generally agree with the points that everyone is making that Charmed and Charm Person are not mind control, yada yada yada, I'm just saying that in the practical situation of a player casting these specific spells for this specific purpose, I don't think a DM should get their hackles up and jump to "no." It's creative.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I’ll throw this in there...
sure You (charm person caster) and I are friendly acquaintances...
but there’s no way in hell I’d take a catnap. The people you’re with still have blood dripping from their weapons, 2 seconds ago they would have attacked me, and they are NOT my friendly acquaintances. And if you think it’s reasonable I fall asleep in front of them. You must have mistaken your spell as dominate person.
Blank