Charm Person, Sleep, Turn Undead and "broken" abilities

[Deleted]

The Charm Person spell, or other spells alike, are always cause of argument specially regarding Referees with their games, villains and plans frustrated by a single spell.

Some time ago I was about to start a human-only campaign (our current Hyborian Age game) and a guy said it was a terrible idea, because a player of his already destroyed their game multiple times by using Charm Person in a "boss" or important NPC, and having a low fantasy Settings way less fantastic beasts, this kind of problem would happens even more frequently as a lot of bosses would be other humans.

I disagreed, but I understand why he was talking about it.

I'm guilty as well of creating broken characters and frustrating multiple games. 


Recently

Three weeks ago a player asked me if it was possible to use Charm Person in a Sorceress that was conducting a ritual and about to end the life of a NPC that they was supposed to protect.
(I confess I was sweating)
I've said that as being a high level Sorcerer it would be difficult as she would Save with a bonus, but he could try nevertheless.

He decided to make a normal attack and if the Sorceress didn't died, they would take the risk in the next turn.
He made a critical hit and almost killed the Sorceress, who then decided to flee to return as a Nemesis of this character later, now with a horrible scar on her face and a thirsty for vengeance.

I kind of discouraged the player, but I was also being fair as she do Save with a bonus, but at least I didn't said "no".
I was kinda of guilty of having discouraged him though.

Last week another player from another group asked to Charm a Captain of a Pirate Ship they were trying to flee.
This character was travelling in the ship but not as a prisoner, while the rest of the characters was slaves in the ship.
As he acted later in the combat between the newly freed slaves and the pirates, and didn't attacked any of the other pirates, the Captain didn't knew he was with the slaved characters, so he accepted the character's "suggestions" pretty well, as they were not absurd suggestions, and he ended the combat with a Charm Spell.

(The Captain also saved with a bonus, but with a result of a 1 and a 3 in 2d6 he failed miserably)

Although I was not expecting this Charm spell, I didn't discouraged this time because I've felt guilty the last time I did, and it was also a good roleplay and a good idea.

As it happened twice recently, with two different groups, I was thinking about it and I decided to read the spell entry in the books again.
This is what I've reasoned about it.


About Charm Person Spell

First, there is no clear guidelines for Charm Person in various of the old games where it appears, that's because every Referee should decide by themselves what makes sense or not regarding the Spell and their Settings. (IMO)

As there is no rules about what exactly the Charm Spell is, how it works and what means "until dispelled", I provide some suggestions and reasoning about it:

- The old books never said that "dispelled" means "magical dispel", the common definition of "dispelled" in a dictionary is "to make (a doubt, feeling, or belief) disappear".

- There are various ways of doing a doubt, a feeling or a belief disappear.

- A Charmed creature will never cause harm to itself or someone it loves, there is no better way of "making a belief" that you're the charmed person's friend disappear than tell them to suicide or to attack their friends.

- A Charmed creature attacked by the charmer will have the Charm hold off, for the same reason above.

- An Enchantment such as Charm Person being cast in a battle will either fail automatically specially if the caster already attacked the target or one of it's friends, or the target will Save with a +3 because the situation itself will not easily make it believe that you're a friend.

- A Sorceress conducting a ritual to wake up Abysmal Entities aren't waiting for "visitors" during the ritual, anyone disturbing the ritual is a threat and an enemy, there is no Charm spell that will hold on someone that already seen everyone entering it's chambers as an enemy.

- The Charm Person spell definition is to "bring a single man-type completely under influence of the caster", "under influence" isn't the same as "mind control". A mind control spell, when it exists in a Setting will be a spell of much greater complexity, such as Dominate Person (5th level), Mind Control (7th level) or Enslave (10th level) all of them available on modern games.

- Compelling a creature to do something against it's will, such as cause harm to itself or stopping a ritual, is equivalent to invalidate the creature's own reasoning or will.

To make a person mental invalid to think for itself is the effect of the much complex spell Feeblemind (5th level), so it's a double work as you need to make a spell and then convince the feebleminded creature of doing something stupid, this double work would fit such a description of how some players understand "Charm Person". Even the high level spell Geas (6th level) don't actually force someone of doing something they don't want to, although all the penalties might persuade the target to compel the wishes eventually.

- Finally when the spell ends the creature know it was charmed, because they don't lose their memory and they will have memories of doing something they didn't wanted to or of being "magically" persuaded by someone.

Such effect in a low fantasy Setting is very dangerous, as sooner or later rumors will spread and a Cleric, Militia, Inquisition or other Sorcerer might want to hunt the one that is using such a blasphemous witchery.


With that being said, what do you think about it?

How do you handle Charm Person, and other potential "broken" spells or abilities in your games?
Turn Undead is another one that I often hear complaints about, and I've broken games by using Sleep myself.
What are some house rulings or stories about such abilities do you have?

[hamurai]

I don't think these spells or abilities are necessarily broken, you (as the referee) will have to make sure they're interpreted in a way that doesn't harm the game balance.

In my games, the Charm Person spell is usually understood like a strong love - if you've ever been really in love, you know the feeling - and the charmed person will certainly do things it won't do otherwise, like give up their possessions (again, if you've been in love you probably know what kinds of things). But when it comes to dangerous stuff, the charmed person still tries to avoid it if it might meen harm to themself OR the loved person. That means, when a charmed person accompanies an adventuring MU, the charmed person might often argue with the MU that stuff is too dangerous (maybe offering to do it in the MU's stead), in/after combat they might act crazily and wail and cry for the beloved's safety and that they should turn back. I've also had a charmed hobgoblin constantly yell at the rest of the party that they should listen to the MU's ideas because he'd be the best leader. So, yeah, I'm having fun with the spell as referee, too

When pushed too far (referee discretion depending on the type of charmed person), they can make new saving throws to dispel the charm. As you say, there's no need to dispel it by magic. Love can be dispelled by a even a small revelation about the loved one, so can the Charm Person spell. Commands that will surely kill the charmed person either break the spell automatically or grant a big bonus to the save roll. Every time such a potentially dispelling event happens, I lower the charmed person's saving throw against that magic by at least 1, depending on the severity of the event.

Sleep - well, it's a good spell for low-level characters and has its uses for higher levels, too. I never had it "break" my game - it's a resource and if it's used, the players get the benefit of it. Sleep works as it sounds in my game: the affected creatures fall into a deep sleep, but not so deep that they don't wake up when roughly handled, getting hurt or when hearing loud noises. My players will still mostly sneak past the sleeping creatures and be careful about looting them. I fondly remember a group of sleeping orcs, the PCs in the middle, trying to haul a treasure chest out of the room without waking them. From a side door, another orc (wandering monster) had witnessed this, waited for the players to be in the middle of the sleeping group and then it hurled a stone at one of the sleepers who awoke with a cry of pain, which in turn woke more orcs who yelled in anger when they realized what was happening. (The PCs did have the upper hand, though, and killed the orcs after a short fight, but it Sleep sure wasn't as save as they thought it might be.)

Turn Undead - I know, some refs allow infinite uses of this ability, and that can break the game, in my opinion. I usually allow one attempt to Turn each turn against a given enemy. If new enemies join the fight, they may be turned once they appear, if that fails, the cleric will have to wait until the next try. I pool the enemies so I don't have to keep track of when a turn has passed for each enemy - I count the rounds after the first Turn attempt. Special events may grant additional uses - rallying at the altar of a benevolent deity might be such a case.
Sure, similar to the Sleep spell, this ability can cut an encounter really short, but is that a bad thing? Those undead who are not destroyed might return at some point and short encounters mean more time to explore and trigger traps and have other fun, right?

I've heard complaints about Invisibility and Levitate being game breakers, too. But I've also had many of those refs forget that Levitate only allows to float upwards and downwards, not to the sides, and that while Invisibility last potentially forever by its description ("until broken by the user or by some outside force"), I'd argue to cherish the "outside force" part of the description and get creative Since attackiing breaks the effect, most of the time I have spell-casting break the spell as well (but not another Invisibility spell, for example). Invisibility is great to sneak past monsters or to escape them, but most of the time that's only for one PC. Casting it on the entire party is a big resource expense, and remember: It's not protecting against monsters hearing the character, so the FM in plate will still make noise just by walking around. Also, when sneaking around to scout the dungeon, monsters might see doors opening and closing and suspect there's something wrong there. Clever monsters might grab ash from an old fireplace and throw it to reveal the invisible PC's position.

TL;DR:
Some player abilities and spells seem overly powerful, but just as the players are supposed to be creative about the use of their abilities, the referee should be creative, too. When a spell/ability becomes a sure trick you take away the danger and the fun. But: Be fair. Nothing sucks more than using a spell and have it disappear without effect. Instead, create complications which require the PCs to be creative again.

[clownboss]

Mages suck, dude. Give them at least something useful they can do.

Anyway, the way I play it: Charm Person by the book makes your targeted enemy think you're their best friend, like it's been heard in many Mike Mornard's stories. Sleep is super effective and requires no saving throw, but the falling creatures are on edge and could wake up at any irritation. You still need to roll an attack roll to attack them(with a +4 advantage) and even a miss would be enough to wake them up.

[tetramorph]

@jacksonbenete, it seems to me like it would have been awesomely hilarious for this sorceress suddenly to find herself charmed by one of her enemies.

Seems like that could have resulted in amazing role play opportunities.

Why did you feel you needed to discourage it?

Context: I interpret "charm," as described by others in this thread, as thinking that the caster is your new (or old but you forgot their name) best friend. It does not mean you like the rest of their party. It does not mean you agree with their goals. It does not mean you don't want the same thing and you don't want to keep doing exactly what you are planning to do. It just means you have a special new friend. Also: every time an MU casts charm on a new person, all previously charmed persons get a new saving throw. So my MUs are unlikely simply to be walking around with a cadre of charmed buddies.

So, with that in mind, I think having charmed the major baddie NPC could have been hilarious and fun.

[Deleted]

Another important distinction about being Charmed - if your best friend told you to jump off a bridge, would you? You're not their slave, per se. You're not an automaton. You trust them more than you trust the average person, but you haven't taken leave of your senses. You can't necessarily expect some hapless Orc or Brigand to fight to the death or run headlong into traps at your behest. They'll progressively get more and more negative penalties to their Reaction and Morale rolls if you do that, just like anyone else, until they're effectively no longer Charmed. Or, at the very least, they'll be disillusioned and disappointed with their "best friend."

[noteef]

I am perfectly okay with Charm being a powerful enchantment. I look at it as complete control (I think M&M uses the word *influence*).

When I run my original games, I use random encounter tables and the mystical environment to generate content over what might be my big bad evil genius in other games. Charm the sorceress? Great, now what are you going to do with her? Whatever that is, we are onto the next thing. I stole that from some of Vance’s approach. It always struck me how stories would tear through the plot at incredible speeds.

As for plot armor, there are two things I have done in the past. A few times I have ruled the caster must stay within the spell range to keep the effect. The cloud starts to lift, so to speak, with increasing bonuses to saves if the caster remains separated. This is only 120 feet and seems reasonable.

I have moved away from this for the reasons stated above. It just doesn’t make for a compelling plot. There are likely more interesting things around the next corner.

The second thing I have done (and still do) is use magic items. A ring of protection, ring/amulet of spell turning, etc. can make a player think twice. The key here is I telegraph the heck out of it. Maybe the sorceress can be seen touching her amulet from time to time, or perhaps there are obvious wards tattooed on her body. I don’t want to ambush the players with this after the attempt, rather, I want them to factor this information into their actions.

That is the extent of what I would consider doing to push back against the power of the spell. But again, I don’t find this as compelling as letting it happen. Those who eventually break the charm are not happy about it, and charming NPCs has resulted in everything from assassins and bounties being placed on a PC to an entire village organizing to hunt down the abomination.

[Deleted]

Apr 13, 2021 17:25:08 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

@jacksonbenete , it seems to me like it would have been awesomely hilarious for this sorceress suddenly to find herself charmed by one of her enemies.

Seems like that could have resulted in amazing role play opportunities.

Why did you feel you needed to discourage it?

It might have been hilarious for sure, but I fear about the possibility in the "might", you know?

There are a couple of reasons for my fears, most of them about past experiences both as a player and as a referee.

The first problem is that sometimes a funny situation can be only that, funny, but not fun. Do you know what I mean? 
As hamurai said, sometimes something can take away the danger and the fun with it.

I had games we have a good time laughing about a situation, but the game was then completely trashed about it. Literally.
I also had a game once when I've gave too much power to the players (it was an experiment on something like a shared narrative), and some players completely take out the fun of other players. So after that I was kind of careful/suspicious about players controlling NPCs.

There is also a problem regarding the understanding of the Spell.
I have two players that believe, like me, that Charm Person is about making a suggestion, I have one player that believes it's about fully controlling the NPC, and my other two players I don't know what they think about it yet.

In this specific game about the Sorceress, it is a Hyborian Age game, although I don't care about the players making fun of NPCs sometimes, because I believe that laughing is part of the game, we're not on the Gonzo side, and everybody is waiting for a game with a lot of action (not necessarily combat though) and a lot of danger.
I don't particularly believe that a Charmed Sorceress would stop a sacrifice ritual to a Cosmic Entity, both because she want to complete the ritual, and maybe the entity is interested enough to counter spell the Charm as well (specially because the entity was present, but occult in a pit), but also because of how I believe the spell Charm Person works, if she failed the Save (as I've said I kind of discouraged it but I didn't said no) I believe she would not attack the Magic-User but I can't see why she would be controlled by the player or stop the ritual (and the combat), which was the Magic-User intention.

So, this is a kind of situation about how I as the Referee understand the spell vs how the player understand the spell, it could have caused a discussion in the middle of the game about it, and the discussion would slow down the game spoiling the fun for everyone.

I want to reward the creative Magic-User, but I also want to reward the Fighter and the Cleric that were waiting to fight the Sorceress for two entire gaming sessions...
Would it be funny if I let the Magic-User control the Sorceress? Probably.
Would be fun for everyone? I don't think so but I can't be sure.
I'm overthinking the situation? Probably. 

Also: every time an MU casts charm on a new person, all previously charmed persons get a new saving throw. So my MUs are unlikely simply to be walking around with a cadre of charmed buddies.

This is very cool! A nice idea for balancing purposes.

[Deleted]

Apr 13, 2021 17:56:54 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Another important distinction about being Charmed - if your best friend told you to jump off a bridge, would you? You're not their slave, per se. You're not an automaton. You trust them more than you trust the average person, but you haven't taken leave of your senses. You can't necessarily expect some hapless Orc or Brigand to fight to the death or run headlong into traps at your behest. They'll progressively get more and more negative penalties to their Reaction and Morale rolls if you do that, just like anyone else, until they're effectively no longer Charmed. Or, at the very least, they'll be disillusioned and disappointed with their "best friend."

Yeah, I agree.

But the discussion showed a lot of interpretations about it.
Those are cool replies, although I'm surprised that no one showed up considering the Spell (or others abilities) to be broken, I'm also surprised how different everyone interpret the Spell.
There are people talking about friendship, true love, influence and complete control.

Certainly every interpretation talks about different levels of power for the Spell, different in-game situations, and different (potential) degrees of "brokenness".

So I agree when we're talking about a Charm Person that ranges from influence to friendship.
That's how I see the Spell, more on the influence side than the friendship, but I can understand the Spell on the friendship spectrum without problems.

But when we're talking about true love or complete control I think the Spell can become too off for some Settings or Tones. (IMO)
Would a "true love", whatever it means, jump off a bridge when told to? I'm afraid that I know some people that would.
Would someone under "complete control" do that? Yes, by definition. 

[clownboss]

How bout this: The more high-level a Mage is, the more powerful the Charm Person spell can be.

[Deleted]

Apr 14, 2021 20:06:30 GMT -6 clownboss said:

How bout this: The more high-level a Mage is, the more powerful the Charm Person spell can be.

This is a way more consistent approach IMO.

That's because as I've said, not even Geas gives "complete control" of a creature.
I think every Referee can rule their Charm Person as they prefer or understand it of course , but for the sake of discussion, I would argue it as inconsistent with the entire spell system, how can a 1st level Spell be more powerful than a 6th level one?

That's something that kept me thinking after I've put some time to read it again some days ago.

[nagnar]

Apr 14, 2021 20:17:33 GMT -6 @jacksonbenete said:

Apr 14, 2021 20:06:30 GMT -6 clownboss said:

How bout this: The more high-level a Mage is, the more powerful the Charm Person spell can be.

This is a way more consistent approach IMO.

That's because as I've said, not even Geas gives "complete control" of a creature.
I think every Referee can rule their Charm Person as they prefer or understand it of course , but for the sake of discussion, I would argue it as inconsistent with the entire spell system, how can a 1st level Spell be more powerful than a 6th level one?

That's something that kept me thinking after I've put some time to read it again some days ago.

A suggestion for this inspired by another game: Rather than have it give complete control, make the charm person spell instill a feeling or belief towards a person, species, situation, object etc with the strength of the feeling or conviction being scaled in some way mechanically by the caster's level.

[atlantean]

Sleep is the spell that bugs me. I don't mind the lowly LVL 1 medium that has just one of them memorized. It's that pesky LVL 4 theurgist that has 4 of them and when the party has three or four of those guys.... then it's always nighty-night to my bands of hobgoblins, gnolls, bugbears etc. I had to reduce the number that could be slept to about half what the spell says.

[blackwyvern]

Focus a game session with monsters that they can't put to sleep every so often, require read magic to read a riddle in a hallway, put written clues out there in languages that no one in the party knows, create a few windy tunnels that blow any fire out, or start using areas of magical darkness. If you create opportunities for other spells to be more valuable your players will learn to diversify their spell selections.

[thegreyelf]

PLAYER: "I cast charm person on the big bad."

DM (Rolls behind screen): "Oh, alas, it looks like they saved. Who's next?"

Done.

* * *

PLAYER: I cast sleep on the entire party of orcs.

DM: They're asleep. WHat next?

PLAYER: We start killing them.

DM: There's four of you. You move forward and each kill the first one you come across (rolls behind screen). The sickening sound of slicing flesh and cracking bones combined with the clank of your armor awakens the rest. Combat continues.

Done.

[waysoftheearth]

What about charm person (a mere 1st level spell) only affects normals? You could say that's the implication of the "includes" list. Then, heroes etc. would only be affected by the (4th level) charm monster spell.

[Finarvyn]

One of my favorite OD&D tricks is to give the Magic-user a list of spell names but not spell descriptions. They have to then interpret what they think the spell can do, and as a DM I get to adjudicate what the spell actually does. That way I have some flexibility on how many dice I roll or how big the effect of the spell might be at the time.

[retrorob]

To be honest, I'm rather surprised. I don't have any problems with these spells and I don't find them broken in any way. Remember that 1st level M-U can memorize only one spell per adventure/day/delve.

Charm Person is what it is - and I stress the word person. A lot of creatures aren't included. Additionally, there is always a ST versus charm allowed. Treat is as Jedi trick - if a victim of the spell saves, she will be aware of magic-user's action, just like Jabba the Hutt was. Powerful NPC's can have M-U and Clerics around them in order to prevent a charm to be cast (or dispel it at once).

Sleep is a mighty spell, but how a weak M-U can defend himself? Again there is a lot of restrictions imposed and you can't put to sleep a troll. As for the killing, I always remind lawful characters, that they are not supposed to do such a thing. If only some of the adversaries are asleep, the rest is going to wake them up as soon as possible etc.

Turning Undead is rather weak, if you use numbers from vanilla OD&D. I mean - roll 2d12 for ghuls or wights and see what happens. Remember that you can turn/destroy only 2d6. Oh, and don't forget to check surprise and melee range. If the monster are able to drawn the characters into melee, no turning attempt should be possible.

What I can recommend - try to play the game just as it is, and see for yourself. By play I mean a long campaign (let's say, 40 game sessions).

[tkdco2]

Even powerful 1st-level spells like sleep aren't perfect. I played a solo game where the already injured characters ran into a group of 4 orcs armed with bows. The magic-user cast sleep, but 3 orcs made their saving throw. the adventure ended with the party turning tail. They were lucky the orcs had orders to guard a specific area and thus didn't pursue them.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 16, 2021 9:36:09 GMT -6 retrorob said:

Sleep is a mighty spell, but how a weak M-U can defend himself? Again there is a lot of restrictions imposed and you can't put to sleep a troll. As for the killing, I always remind lawful characters, that they are not supposed to do such a thing. If only some of the adversaries are asleep, the rest is going to wake them up as soon as possible etc.

I believe sleep is an indiscriminate area effect. I.e., it affects friends and foes alike.

As for lawfuls not slaying helpless chaotics... do the 3LBBs actually say this anywhere? My impression is that, if anything, the reverse is implied (e.g., M&M p12, languages). Law and Chaos are "sides" and each is keen to destroy the other.

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2021 17:01:40 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Apr 16, 2021 9:36:09 GMT -6 retrorob said:

Sleep is a mighty spell, but how a weak M-U can defend himself? Again there is a lot of restrictions imposed and you can't put to sleep a troll. As for the killing, I always remind lawful characters, that they are not supposed to do such a thing. If only some of the adversaries are asleep, the rest is going to wake them up as soon as possible etc.

I believe sleep is an indiscriminate area effect. I.e., it affects friends and foes alike.

I read an article about a convention game where Gygax was DMing and someone cast Sleep, and the player was surprised that it put literally everyone in the radius to sleep, not just the Orcs. So, it appears that was the intention. 

[Desparil]

Apr 16, 2021 14:41:39 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

Even powerful 1st-level spells like sleep aren't perfect. I played a solo game where the already injured characters ran into a group of 4 orcs armed with bows. The magic-user cast sleep, but 3 orcs made their saving throw. the adventure ended with the party turning tail. They were lucky the orcs had orders to guard a specific area and thus didn't pursue them.

To be fair, that was with your house rules. By the book, there is no saving throw:

The spell always affects up to the number

of creatures determined by the dice.

Which even if slightly open to interpretations allowing saves, is then reinforced by how it was actually played and how it appeared in AD&D a few years later 

Components: V, S, M

Costing Time: 1 segment

Saving Throw: None

So really, this is a case where you already reduced the effectiveness of the spell because you thought it was too powerful as written.

[tkdco2]

Actually, it was in the rules, but I was playing BFRPG rather than OD&D. The rulebook states:

"Each creature in the area is allowed a save vs. Spells to resist the effect." 

Not having played OD&D in a while, I thought the writeup was the same. My mistake of course, but I did NOT reduce the spell's effectiveness because I thought it was too powerful.

[Desparil]

Apr 16, 2021 22:15:44 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

Actually, it was in the rules, but I was playing BFRPG rather than OD&D. The rulebook states:

"Each creature in the area is allowed a save vs. Spells to resist the effect." 

Not having played OD&D in a while, I thought the writeup was the same. My mistake of course, but I did NOT reduce the spell's effectiveness because I thought it was too powerful.

Ah, my mistake on the house rules part, then. So to use more accurate language, its effectiveness was already reduced since the author(s) of BFRPG found it too strong for their taste.

[retrorob]

Apr 16, 2021 17:01:40 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Apr 16, 2021 9:36:09 GMT -6 retrorob said:

Sleep is a mighty spell, but how a weak M-U can defend himself? Again there is a lot of restrictions imposed and you can't put to sleep a troll. As for the killing, I always remind lawful characters, that they are not supposed to do such a thing. If only some of the adversaries are asleep, the rest is going to wake them up as soon as possible etc.

I believe sleep is an indiscriminate area effect. I.e., it affects friends and foes alike.

As for lawfuls not slaying helpless chaotics... do the 3LBBs actually say this anywhere? My impression is that, if anything, the reverse is implied (e.g., M&M p12, languages). Law and Chaos are "sides" and each is keen to destroy the other.

Sleep - right, it's up to a referee. Circle? Line? Cone? All we know is the range of 24". I would say that M-U, casting Sleep from the 1st rank, can affect enemies only. S&S adds area effect (1" diameter) and turn duration (4-16).

Lawful vs Chaotics - of course this is my house rule. King Henry V had the French prisoners executed during the battle of Agincourt, and I guess he was lawful.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 17, 2021 3:46:50 GMT -6 retrorob said:

Sleep - right, it's up to a referee. Circle? Line? Cone? All we know is the range of 24". I would say that M-U, casting Sleep from the 1st rank, can affect enemies only. S&S adds area effect (1" diameter) and turn duration (4-16).

The other important detail we know is how many figures will be affected (determined by dice).

--My house rulings--
1. btb it can get kinda awkward where there are mixed HD targets available. I reduce it down to 4-14 (2d6+2) normals affected. 3 HD (e.g., bugbears) count 2 each. Only a single 4 HD (e.g., ogre, hero) can be targeted.

2. Determining individual targets randomly (btb) can be time-consuming. I find it simpler to have figures nearest the target affected first. This way the area of effect is moot, you simply hit the required number of targets--friend or foe--until you run out of magic or targets. I also assume the spell is blocked by solid walls, so it effectively happens "in a room" underground.

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2021 18:51:53 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Apr 17, 2021 3:46:50 GMT -6 retrorob said:

Sleep - right, it's up to a referee. Circle? Line? Cone? All we know is the range of 24". I would say that M-U, casting Sleep from the 1st rank, can affect enemies only. S&S adds area effect (1" diameter) and turn duration (4-16).

The other important detail we know is how many figures will be affected (determined by dice).

--My house rulings--
1. btb it can get kinda awkward where there are mixed HD targets available. I reduce it down to 4-14 (2d6+2) normals affected. 3 HD (e.g., bugbears) count 2 each. Only a single 4 HD (e.g., ogre, hero) can be targeted.

2. Determining individual targets randomly (btb) can be time-consuming. I find it simpler to have figures nearest the target affected first. This way the area of effect is moot, you simply hit the required number of targets--friend or foe--until you run out of magic or targets. I also assume the spell blocked by solid walls, so it effectively happens "in a room" underground.

I think the mixed HD situation weird as well.
I think it might work just ok to roll 2d6 (or maybe 1d6+M-U level) and reduce the results in Hit Dices, from the lowest HD creatures to the higher HD ones. If you roll a 6, you can put six HD 1 creatures to sleep, or maybe four HD 1 creatures and one HD 2 creature.

I think this rule started on AD&D 2e and variations of it was used later in other editions. IIRC in 5e you roll Sleep like a damage, to reduce creatures Hit Points and they fall asleep if HP is reduced to zero. I think it's a good rule but I don't use hit points in my games, so the 2e rule using Hit Dices works for me.

I thought on affecting party members as well but never used it that way. I think that reducing HD's or Hit Points instead of a raw "put x creatures to Sleep" is already kind of balanced for me.
The nearest targets being affected first is a good rule that I will steal.

[waysoftheearth]

hp is too fiddley for me; number of figures is just quicker. I also like that it's coarser-grained.

I chose 4-14 because it falls between 2-16 and 2-12 numbers given btb. I also kinda like that it's still the classic 2d6 and that the minimum is 4 rather than 2. (The only 3 HD critters in the 3LBBs are wights and gray ooze which, imc, are immune to sleep anyway).

FWIW, I'd advise against scaling the sleep spell with M-U level. That way lies the "quadratic M-U" thing... a Wizard could hit more mooks by using more than one sleep spell (or by researching a 4th-level spell that hits more).

ymmv

[delta]

I'm generally in the "magic should be powerful" but I'm broadly sympathetic, esp. in the case of by-the-book charm person, at 1st level, being able to indefinitely enslave any person. E.g., When I'd test solo-adventuring, I found that running into the evil magic-user with charm person was always the game-ender.

One thing I've done in my game for a very long time is only allow magic-users to memorize one copy of any particular spell. (This gives more variety and clamps down on overusing one overpowered spell, but they still get one.) A second thing is to clamp down on very long-lasting spells; in the case of a 1st-level spell none can last more than 1 day (need to be at least 5th level spell to be permanent).

The whole "victim looks on you favorably" redefinition through 1E and later makes me queasy because it's so open to unpredictable DM fiat. At least with the full-enslavement it's easy to agree on what that means.

I have seen someone suggest that it might only affect "normals" (1 HD types or thereabouts), and I found I had a bit of a soft spot for that idea.

So recently I have been thinking about what I really want in my game, as part of the fiction, from the charm person spell. I'd be pretty happy with the Obi-Wan mind trick against the stormtroopers. Decisively charm your way past any guard, get any information about local area you want, etc. I'm not quite as happy at making a person flip sides in the middle of combat, having it be super long-term (whether it's permanent, weeks or months or whatever), or having it control the lord or chieftan leading an army. For an effect like the latter I'd want a higher-level spell, like charm monster. Gygax tries to retcon a difference just like that in the 1E DMG (i.e., difference between player and monster charm person).

That's still a work in progress for me. Good thread.

[delta]

On sleep, I agree that the claim (which was new to me as of a few years ago) that by default it hits the caster themselves and their friends was very surprising, and not at all what my intuition for magic like that would have ever been.

Note that Gygax's OD&D supplement Swords & Spells gives it a 1" diameter area of effect (expanded to 3" in the AD&D PHB).

On the general issue of those lack-of-areas in OD&D, and edits in S&S and later, I asked a poll about that here, but it didn't get many responses.

[retrorob]

Apr 17, 2021 18:51:53 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Apr 17, 2021 3:46:50 GMT -6 retrorob said:

Sleep - right, it's up to a referee. Circle? Line? Cone? All we know is the range of 24". I would say that M-U, casting Sleep from the 1st rank, can affect enemies only. S&S adds area effect (1" diameter) and turn duration (4-16).

The other important detail we know is how many figures will be affected (determined by dice).

--My house rulings--
1. btb it can get kinda awkward where there are mixed HD targets available. I reduce it down to 4-14 (2d6+2) normals affected. 3 HD (e.g., bugbears) count 2 each. Only a single 4 HD (e.g., ogre, hero) can be targeted.

2. Determining individual targets randomly (btb) can be time-consuming. I find it simpler to have figures nearest the target affected first. This way the area of effect is moot, you simply hit the required number of targets--friend or foe--until you run out of magic or targets. I also assume the spell is blocked by solid walls, so it effectively happens "in a room" underground.

Technically speaking, by the book (and I mean the 1st print here) M-U can put to sleep "from 1-6 3rd or 4th level types (up to 4 + 1 hit dice)". At the very beginning Sleep was even more powerful. It was amended by the Correction Sheet.

As for the "mixed HD targets", Mr Mornard confirmed on this forum that Gary & Dave would roll for category. So if M-U is facing a pack of hobgoblins, gnolls and ogre, DM should roll d3 to determine which one is affected by the spell.