A question about charm spells...

[IceBear]

Just because the duration of the spell ends doesn't mean, to me, that the subject completely reverts to his old nature to you. If for the past couple of hours he thought you were his best friend, just because the spell ends doesn't mean he's going to start hating you. He can now think clearer, and if he starts thinking back to some of the things you did that he would not normally have done, he'll start to question himself and you and this might change his attitude towards you.

That's pretty much how I've been playing it.

IceBear

 

[Khur]

*nods*

I pretty much play it this way too, IceBear. My friend, well he always has a unique take on things, which can be a great quality.

 

[smetzger]

Re: Re: Re: Thanks ... keep 'em coming!

This is a sound argument. Spellcraft is irrelevant. Bluff is the only skill that could possibly be used for this purpose.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a spellcaster has to rely on a bluff check. There are other ways to go about it, such as standing behind a curtain while you make your arcane gestures and incantations, or simply casting the spell and then persuading him that he should not be concerned about the fact that you just cast a spell on him, because you only have his wellbeing in mind.

You have to have line of site to cast a spell on someone, therefore you cannot stand behind the curtain.

I agree bluff is a better match for disguising your spellcasting. However, if the feat used Bluff, that would make the feat pretty sucky. I think that if you want to use bluff that would be fine, if you did not also require a feat. However, with a Feat Spellcraft could be used for balance reasons.

 

[Nail]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks ... keep 'em coming!

I agree bluff is a better match for disguising your spellcasting. However, if the feat used Bluff, that would make the feat pretty sucky. I think that if you want to use bluff that would be fine, if you did not also require a feat. However, with a Feat Spellcraft could be used for balance reasons.

Yeah, yer right. I guess I have to call "uncle" on this Spellcraft vs. Bluff thing. Th' fighter example pokes a huge hole in the "by the rules" arguement I had going.

So, of the two options for subtle spell casting (Bluff vs. Feat), I'd go with a new feat. Otherwise the spell users wouldn't have much of a chance.

 

[smetzger]

BTW - Back in the days before 3e came out there was a rumour that every spell had some kind of rating that would tell you how obvious/subtle the spell could be cast. At least thats where I got the inspiration for the feat.

 

[IceBear]

BTW - Back in the days before 3e came out there was a rumour that every spell had some kind of rating that would tell you how obvious/subtle the spell could be cast. At least thats where I got the inspiration for the feat.

That would have been nice

IceBear

 

[the Jester]

Remember, you know when you make a saving throw; see pg. 150 of the PH under "succeeding at a saving throw." If you fail your save, you'll certainly remember any irrational or uncharacteristic actions when you finally shrug it off.

 

[IceBear]

Sure, you'll remember them, but the mage could still be viewed in a favorable light - if there's no reason for the subject to equate the mage with those actions.

IceBear

 

[Khur]

Off-topic ...

smetzger,

This balance issue of your feat really intrigues me. How do you come by the balance factors for your feat? How do you know it's balanced? Balanced by whose authority?

I'm not questioning your integrity by the way, I'm just curious as to what your methods are. If you'd rather share them in a non-public forum, feel free to email me.


Back on topic:

I like what everyone's saying ... it's a lively topic. It's refreshing to hear so many intelligent opinions and creative solutions.

The "line of sight" thing is certainly relevant, but just because you can see the subject of the spell, doesn't mean he can see you. Further, what if the curtain can be seen through?

Whether a subject of charm person would remember any uncharacteristic actions he or she took is beyond question. Of course a victim would remember such behavior.

The real question is, ultimately, what if you (with great care and sensitivity) didn't ask for uncharacteristic behavior as the caster of charm? What if you just nudged your new friend along certain lines of thinking that were more beneficial for you? What if you supplemented the charm by treating the subject well, to boot? Would the subject even know he or she had been charmed? Of course, barring the victim having recognized the spell for what it was when you cast it (or barring the enchanter being unable to convince the subject the spell he or she cast was merely a beneficial spell). These are the issues at hand.

Adding to the mix, I say that someone upon whom a charm spell is cast may not even realize he or she was the subject of the spell in question, so long as there were other viable targets for a spell in the area -- including the caster!

Victim: What did you just do, wizard?
Enchanter: Oh, that? Simply a mnemonic dweomer my friend; nothing to be concerned about. I needed to remember a certain place in the city to find a certain person quickly. *smiles*
Victim: Oh. Okay. *smiles*
Enchanter: Would you like to come with me?
Victim: Sure. Who is it?
Enchanter: Alderman Brockmore.
Victim: I know him! You should have asked me first. I can show you where....
Enchanter: *smiles*

 

[Bonedagger]

Does a creature that's been charmed know it has been charmed after the spell wears off? It's not implicit that this is so in anything I remember reading in the rules or D&D FAQ.

(snip)

The rules are unclear about whether a creature knows it has been charmed, or I've forgotten the rule, and don't know where to find it.

If the subject know of charm spells there is a good chance he can use logic to determind that he may have been under influence of one.

It also have something to do with how selfsecure the target normally is.


"Why did I help those people by selling my items cheaper? I knew that if I didn't make enough profit on those swords I would have lost money on that deal.

And then they gave this crappy story about their problems I don't care about, but somehow...

I have a lot of problems now because of that... Charm! Dammit. They need to be punnished!"



You may be able to sound convincing, but that is based up on that the target considder you a close friend and therefore care about your problems as long as the spell is in effect.

At best the target will just remember those actions that he would normally not do as stupid. Charming that same target twice will most likely give him a clue to the source of his newfound stupidity once the charm wears of even if he don't know it is magic.

Added:

The trick is to find somebody who is indifferent to you if you want it subtle.