A question about charm spells...

[Olive]

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

Note that fighters don't have access to Profession, yet Profession (siege engineer) is required to fire siege weapons. Who, exactly, is the most likely candidate for being on a battlefield firing a siege weapon? An Expert?

ummm.... yes. almost certainly. why would you use valuble trained fighters to sit back firing siege weapons. there's a reason that they are siege engineers...

 

[Khur]

More valuable points!

why would you use valuble trained fighters to sit back firing siege weapons. there's a reason that they are siege engineers...

Thanks Olive. My question about siege engineers wasn't a sarcastic one, but a serious question. Yet, it's still arguable. Many "siege engineers" in history were as good or better fighters than other prominent figures on the battlefield. Perhaps they were just high-level experts?

One must note also that Profession could be used for Profession (soldier). Alternately, one should also note Knowledge (war), which I think appears in Sword and Fist. Either of these skills might be used to make the expert tactician/strategist, a great general, or what have you. A fighter gets neither of these skills, yet is supposed to be the greatest battle mind in the game. That's what left an opening for FFG to create the commander alternate core class. Despite the fact that one could argue an aristocrat is the proper class for a general, I think the lack of these skills in a fighter's repertoire, similar to the lack of Intimidate, is an omission and a flaw that I hope 3.5e addresses. It's hardly unbalancing to add these skills to the fighter, especially if the DM gives no bonus skill points.

Back on topic:

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

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

Excellent points. However, I assert that just because someone knows of enchantments, doesn't mean that it follows he'll know or deduce he was under one. That doesn't follow the logic of, "The easiest answer is probably the right one." This assertion is true, unless the world is rife with enchanters, and therefore everyone is so familiar with enchantments that there can be no mistake. Persons, according to their natures, can feel strange connections with other persons at any time, or take pity, or what have you. This brings me to your other point, which is exceptionally valuable here.

The NPC's attitude most certainly should affect how the charm is perceived after it wears off. A hostile creature would certainly notice its own shift in perceptions, unless it is incredibly stupid. On the other hand, using charm on a hostile entity is inherently unsubtle. Thus, I took for granted that the spell, if subtle, must be used on a creature that would not notice a big step in its reactions to a character later. I didn't mention that assumption in specific though. Thanks for bringing that to light.

[EDIT] Using charm person to get a discount from a merchant so big that it actually hurts the merchant is inherently unsubtle as well. On the other hand, using it to get what one might with a successful Bluff or Diplomacy roll in haggling, say 10% or so, is subtle. The merchant is likely to remember that he took a liking to the enchanter for some reason, and the enchanter was a good haggler. Used this way, charm could save a PC a lot of money over the course of many trading sessions, yet present little risk of being caught. Bilking a merchant out of a lot of money is simply foolish in light of this notion. An intelligent enchanter does well to realize this point early on.

 

[Nail]

Re: More valuable points!

Using charm person to get a discount from a merchant so big that it actually hurts the merchant is inherently unsubtle as well. On the other hand, using it to get what one might with a successful Bluff or Diplomacy roll in haggling, say 10% or so, is subtle. The merchant is likely to remember that he took a liking to the enchanter for some reason, and the enchanter was a good haggler. Used this way, charm could save a PC a lot of money over the course of many trading sessions, yet present little risk of being caught. Bilking a merchant out of a lot of money is simply foolish in light of this notion. An intelligent enchanter does well to realize this point early on.

...which brings us back to the original question: How do you use a spell with verbal and somatic components subtly, without a metamagic feat? By the core rules?

I think our answer so far has been: you can't, unless there are exceptional circumstances (hidden caster, noisy room, distracted subject, etc.) That can get tiresome to an enchanter, don't you think? But then again, that's what mundanes who wish to be subtle have to contend with all the time.....

I had an idea (amazing!), that I thought I'd share:
Fighters don't get bluff as a class skill, so they don't often bluff opponents in battle. .....even though, by popular account, a good fighter should be a master at "feinting". ( My former Kendo sensei is an excellent example of this.)

So, perhaps this sort of "mundane" feinting is just rolled into the BAB? You get better BAB because (in part) you're better at feinting.

So, turn to the wizard:
Being subtle as a spell caster is rolled into the spellcaster's expertise...in this case, measured by their spellcraft skill. It's not a perfect match, but close enough.......Although you could also make it a simple "caster level" check, modified (perhaps) by the relevant casting ability score.

......a house rule, I know......House Rules forum, anyone?

 

[Bonedagger]

Re: Re: More valuable points!

So, turn to the wizard:
Being subtle as a spell caster is rolled into the spellcaster's expertise...in this case, measured by their spellcraft skill. It's not a perfect match, but close enough.......Although you could also make it a simple "caster level" check, modified (perhaps) by the relevant casting ability score.

......a house rule, I know......House Rules forum, anyone?

Casting a magic subtle. Hmm...

What if we used bonuses.


Caster bonus (Can he make the spell appear/sound like something else/mudane): Caster Spellcraft vs Target Spot/Listen [Bonus is the diff. that you win by. No penalty]

Target bonus (Do he recognice/notice anything unusual): Caster Bluff vs. Target Spellcraft/spot/Listen (The higest one) [Again no penalty]


And then to see if target realize that a spell is being cast:

Caster Bluff + bonus vs. Target Sense Motive + bonus.

 

[ThomasBJJ]

I would rule that casting the spell right in front of them would tip them off that they were being manipulated. I would give them a bonus to the save, and they will always retain full memory of all events. They might cooperate with you (on a failed save) but if they saw you cast on them right before you came up and talked them into something, they will likely put two and two together.

Best use for this spell would be to cast it from a distance or concealment, THEN approach the subject. as a DM, I would not let the player know wether the save was successful or not. They will find out soon enough when they try to coerce the target. The target will remember the encounter after the spell wears off, but would not likely deduce he was charmed. Maybe just that you are manipulative or a "fast talker". Haven't we all known people that could talk us into things we didn't want (or want to do) and then when they leave you ask yourself "why did I agree to that?!!" Think newspaper subscription telemarketers, used car salesmen, peer pressure, etc.