D&D 5E Using Sending to contact a creature who was disguised?

[Baldurs_Underdark]

I have a situation: My players may want to contact a person in the game using the "Sending" spell, but they only have seen this creature in disguise (it used Disguise Self). Would the spell arrive if this person is not disguised at the moment?

The spell says: You send a short message of twenty-five words or less to a creature with you are familiar.

I am not sure that I can say that the players are familiar with this person. Am I being too harsh if I say that the spell does not work? I am afraid that the players think this NPC is dead if the spell fails when the reality is quite different.

 

[5ekyu]

I have a situation: My players may want to contact a person in the game using the "Sending" spell, but they only have seen this creature in disguise (it used Disguise Self). Would the spell arrive if this person is not disguised at the moment?

The spell says: You send a short message of twenty-five words or less to a creature with you are familiar.

I am not sure that I can say that the players are familiar with this person. Am I being too harsh if I say that the spell does not work? I am afraid that the players think this NPC is dead if the spell fails when the reality is quite different.

I would not rule it doesnt work. It's not a divination after all. If you fo that, it can become a disguise detector, might have issues for shifty types like druids, etc. I would simply let it do what it says - deliver the message to the creature and allow a response even if it is a different appearance.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not sure of the exact situation but "familiar with" is a really generic statement so it's up to the DM to decide what that means. So I would say no, but also just let the players know your thinking. That, and just because the target doesn't respond doesn't mean they didn't receive it.

 

[jgsugden]

A few approaches I've used in similar situations:

1.) Ambiguity is fine. They use the sending spell, but there is no response. Did it go through and there was no response? Did it not go through? You may never need to decide and they may never know.

2.) Skill checks. If something might technically be outside a spell description, I'll allow a PC to make a skill check to make it work. This goes back to the old Spellcraft skill of prior editions...

3.) Partial effectiveness. In a situation like this one, you vould have part of the message get through and allow part of the response to come back. That provides the hint that something is off, but doesn't scream they were disguised.

Which option would I use? The one that tells the best story.

 

[Umbran]

I have a situation: My players may want to contact a person in the game using the "Sending" spell, but they only have seen this creature in disguise (it used Disguise Self). Would the spell arrive if this person is not disguised at the moment?

The spell says: You send a short message of twenty-five words or less to a creature with you are familiar.

I am not sure that I can say that the players are familiar with this person.

You say they "only have seen this creature in disguise." That doesn't make it clear to me what kind of interaction they have had. Have they had extended conversations while the creature was in disguise, or have they merely seen the creature in the background.

I don't think the disguise is actually relevant. The spell doesn't depend on what the target is wearing for clothes. Nor does it care about whether the target is wearing cosmetics, right. It doesn't depend on knowing a "true name".

 

[jasper]

Are you trying to sending Batman? OR the Guy in the blue and white clock and baby yoda mask who sold you those fake flame gems?

 

[Al2O3]

They send it to the person they are familiar with, and that person can reply. Now, if that person is around other people who don't know about the disguise, things might get awkward for them.

Other than that, the recipient might simply "go into character" to keep up appearances.

In short, if the disguise is different enough to put "familiar" into question, then I would rule it's independent enough to be a valid target by itself. Still the same person getting the message in the end.

 

[Shiroiken]

This is totally a DM call, but I would have the spell work perfectly. They are familiar with the target, even if they're not familiar with the true form of the target. Animal messenger, however, wouldn't be able to find the target unless they gave it a specific name the target uses.

 

[Coroc]

...
The spell says: You send a short message of twenty-five words or less to a creature with you are familiar.
...

Nope they are not familiar. The spell is not called "locate unknown person"

Familiar for me is: You should know at least know their face or at an absolute minimum have a description of it, which is as good as a photograph. Also they should know the name of the person.
Or they should have talked with that person before, without seeing them that would be valid too.
So if they encountered the person earlier and the person in disguise and telling them in a low voice"Cannot talk now we meet later" that would be good enough for me.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I would allow the spell to work normally. My reasoning is that familiarity is an ambiguous concept. How does one develop familiarity? Is it by knowing facts about that person such as their name and trivia about their lives? If so, a person could be familiar and cast sending on individuals they've never even met. But if this is the standard, then that same caster might be unable to successfully cast sending to contact the barista they see everyday that gets them their coffee and engages in small talk.

On the other hand, does familiarity come about based on interactions and shared history? If so, the foremost scholar on Strahd von Zarovich could not use sending to contact Strahd since they have never met. But they could use sending to contact their neighborhood, who they don't know terribly well but still get together during communal holidays.

So it really depends on how you define familiarity. Is it about concrete knowledge of that individual, or the shared experiences and interactions you've had with them, or something in between?

Personally, I lean in favor of interactions over concrete knowledge. Magic is ephemeral and about energy. I see interactions and relationships as being able to create invisible links of energy or impressions between others, and I see magic being better able to follow such links more easily than concrete facts and descriptions which can be obfuscated by perception and context.