A question about charm spells...

[Khur]

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.

It is likely that a creature that does something against its normal tendencies while charmed will know something is odd. (Like a merchant forced to give a good deal, or some such thing.) What if the enchanting party is very subtle, and only uses his or her influence to nudge the charmed creature in minor directions? What if the caster is friendly to the victim, or at least is good at acting so? What if he or she is willing to take actions that would convince the enchanted party of his or her own loyalty?

Is it possible to repeatedly charm a creature in this subtle manner? Through this possible alternative use of the spell, the enchanter merely augments her own influence instead of using the spell for short-term gain. A victim of this spell might actually come to like (or even love) the caster legitimately, though the process of that "liking" is sped by the fact that magic is being used.

Note that the mechanics of a love potion suggests that the charm person spell might be used in this way, since the amorousness created by the potion lingers. The Charm and Compulsion section of the DMG doesn't say one way or another. The section of the DMG on Saving Throws reads that someone under the effect of such a spell doesn't know it, but doesn't say what happens when the spell wears off.

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.

Your suggestions or ideas?

 

[candidus_cogitens]

If you ask me, it is unlikely that the character would ever figure out that he had been charmed, unless he was presented with the facts in an unavoidable way. Such as ... if someone said, "I can't believe you would betray me like that. I'm your faithful friend." And even then, I think it would depend on the results of a (repeated) will save against the original enchantment, perhaps with a circumstance modifier.

The problem I have is that it can be really hard to cast a Charm Person spell without the individual knowing that you are casting some sort of spell--unless you have the necessary metamagic feats. If a mysterious looking guy comes up and waves his hands in a deliberate manner and speaks strange words, it's kind of a tip off that you might be the object of a spell. That's bound to arouse suspicion!

 

[photon1966]

This has been the same problem I have faced in my own game. I posted a similar question myself and wondered what would be peoples take on this.

I have an enchanter in my party who plans to use similar spells to make the most of his magic, trying to get info and better deals via charming magick. I recall from a Forgotten Realm novel a hobbit who had a necklace that did this and it was very subtle, though later in the story the towns folk discovered this and avoided looking at the amulet. But what happens when a fella casts in front of you and then you later come out of it. Is there lingering effects? You surely don't forget what you have done, just why you did it.

Help would be appreciated!

 

[mkletch]

Basically, we go by what is done after the charm takes effect. If you try to take advantage of someone, they will remember. If you try to be nice, they will remember. Only if you do something completely strange might the victim not remember or be otherwise confused.

Last week, the druid (my wife) just whipped out her scimitar and opened up this guy who had run from us for no reason and who we had cornered. I used a charm person to mitigate the situation, talk him down, allow me to use some non-magical healing (healing salve from T&B), etc. Because I was helping him to not die at the hands of an over-reacting party member, He would remember the situation positively. If I had gotten him to tell me the location of his little strongbox under the bed or something, he would remember that I had taken advantage of him, and possibly figure out that I had enspelled him.

-Fletch!

 

[0-hr]

I allow most enchantments to be cast without obvious "spellcasting". For example, to cast a Suggestion, the wizard just says the suggestion, infusing his words with power (and perhaps a Jedi-esqe hand gesture). If any other arcane casters are nearby and make a Spellcraft check, then I'll tell them that the feel the enchantment beneath the words.

These are pretty much house-interpretations though. By-the-book, people feel a "tingling" or some such whenever they make a save, and all verbal/somatic components are blatantly obvious spell attempts. But, like my previous DM said, "If the act of casting the spell would make the spell moot, then you can hide the components."

Most people will react poorly to a stranger (or even a "friend") who just walks up and recites a loud incantation in their face.

 

[Khur]

Thanks for the input ... I wonder if there'll be much disagreement with charm used subtly?

 

[candidus_cogitens]

I allow most enchantments to be cast without obvious "spellcasting". For example, to cast a Suggestion, the wizard just says the suggestion, infusing his words with power (and perhaps a Jedi-esqe hand gesture). If any other arcane casters are nearby and make a Spellcraft check, then I'll tell them that the feel the enchantment beneath the words.

These are pretty much house-interpretations though. By-the-book, people feel a "tingling" or some such whenever they make a save, and all verbal/somatic components are blatantly obvious spell attempts. But, like my previous DM said, "If the act of casting the spell would make the spell moot, then you can hide the components."

Most people will react poorly to a stranger (or even a "friend") who just walks up and recites a loud incantation in their face.

I like this way of handling it. On the other hand, I have some doubts. Maybe the spellcaster should have to do a bluff check. Or maybe he should have to try to stand out of sight, behind a curtain, or at least at a short distance away from the target.

It would seem reasonable for the target to get a circumstance bonus to their saving throw if they are completely aware that a spell is being targeted at them.

If they have failed the saving throw, however, it seems like the spellcaster could fairly easily persuade them that the gestures and incantations were not really a spell at all, but perhaps some kind of personal ritual ... or maybe he could suggest to the charmed person that it was a favorable spell, rather than a manipulative one. If these suggestions were received, then even after the spell wore off, the charmed person would not reconsider it unless he was somehow forced to do so, in which case, he would get another will save, I would think, not automatic success.

 

[Speaks With Stone]

The wizard I'm playing now is an enchanter and he is obsessive about concealing his magic. I've been using hypnotism instead of charm person because the spell states that they won't remember being hypnotized and that whatever "suggestion" is placed during the hypnotism maintains the same "positive" reaction even after the spell. We've been playing that its obvious to everyone that the spell is going off, but if I catch all of the targets, then the spell wipes their memory. If one resists, then they know exactly what is going on and can try to convince the others later.

I've finally picked up both silent spell and still spell, so I can use hypnotism intermixed with my diplomacy or bluff.

I haven't used charm person, but perhaps the same method should be applied there. If it works, they don't remember. They remember everything said and done, but they just rationalize it as "he seemed nice enough at the time. He kind of reminded me of an old friend."

 

[smetzger]

According to the rules casting a spell is always recognized as spellcasting. You may not know what spell it is, but you know that a spell is being cast. This is implicit in the counterspell rules. Therefore, anyone who is charmed knows that a spell has been cast on them.

One way of getting around this is with a Feat of mine from the Netbook of Feats, I believe it will be in the Ultimate Book of Feats coing out soon.

SUBTLE SPELL [Metamagic]
COPYRIGHT 2001, Scott Metzger
You know how to disguise the use of material, verbal, and somatic components; thus making your spell casting difficult to recognize.
Prerequisite: Spellcraft skill.
Benefit: When you cast a subtle spell those who could observe you must make a Spot check opposed by your Spellcraft check to identify that you are casting a spell. A subtle spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
Normal: Without this feat spell casting is automatically recognized as spell casting.
Notes: Casting a subtle spell still draws an attack of opportunity. If the person taking the attack of opportunity fails the opposed Spot check they still get the attack of opportunity but do not know why you let your guard down.
Balance: 4.16 (Purp 4.60, Pow 4.00, Port 4.20, Comp 4.00, Rule 4.00)

 

[Khur]

Thanks ... keep 'em coming!

I understand that spell casting is always recognized as such if the person upon whom you cast is aware of you. Someone need not be aware of you for your spell to work.

I agree that charm person is a worse choice than hypnotism. I had forgotten about that possibility. (One can't remember everything w/o eiditic memory.)

Another part of hypnotism really works to solve my storytelling dilemma, without fudging the rules. A person gets -2 to the saving throw if hypnotism is cast in a non-combat situation.

As for the feat, I have to agree with Sean K. Reynolds on the point of most metamagic feats: they're largely not worth it for the benefit to cost ratio. Why? Because you pay twice for the same ability -- once as a feat, and then again with a higher spell slot. Look in many published adventures and characters and you may find some characters with metamagic feats, but only rarely will you find a charcater with spells prepared using those feats. When it does happen, the NPC in question is usually high level (by necessity). There are ways around this, which I'm working on for my campaign and writing.

As for Subtle Spell, well it's all well and good, but it's "pay thrice". You pay for the feat, you pay a higher spell slot, and you have to make a skill check. Furthermore, the skill used is hardly appropriate (Spellcraft). I have no idea what the "Balance" part of the feat is, but it looks interesting.

Now I see where you're going with this feat -- a "tween" for still spell and silent spell. It's a good idea.

If anything, though, given that Bluff can be used to such huge advantage for a rogue (the fient), pulling off a subtle spell should use Bluff. Even then, the Bluff roll should be free, just like a feint is, or tumbling through threatened areas. It could be opposed by a Spellcraft check or an Int check. If a DM is particularly generous, he or she might allow a non-spellcaster a Spot check instead of an Int check, but only because Sense Motive requires one minute to use (which is also wonky).

Any feat that modified such a roll should merely give a bonus to the Bluff check to cover a spell.

I appreciate all of your feedback, and look forward to more banter on the subject.

BTW, I did vote in the snatch arrows poll, and I agree with Sean again on that note.