-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
A question about charm spells...
- Thread starter Khur
- Start date
Khur
Sympathy for the Devil
Nope...
Tome and Blood has nothing about this. The only book I've seen with anything similar is The Quintessential Rogue by Mongoose, though I'd hardly recommend buying that book for that reason. (It is a decent book though.)
The Psionics Handbook does make a distiction between magic and psionics in the fact that psychic powers do not require the same somatic and verbal components, and are therefore scarier. A psychic doesn't necessarily reveal he's doing anything when using his powers.
Tome and Blood has nothing about this. The only book I've seen with anything similar is The Quintessential Rogue by Mongoose, though I'd hardly recommend buying that book for that reason. (It is a decent book though.)
The Psionics Handbook does make a distiction between magic and psionics in the fact that psychic powers do not require the same somatic and verbal components, and are therefore scarier. A psychic doesn't necessarily reveal he's doing anything when using his powers.
Nail
First Post
Re: Thanks ... keep 'em coming!
I disagree: pulling off a subtle spell should not use bluff. Why? Well...
Perhaps instead of a feat, it could simply be a spellcraft roll, with some appropriately high DC. Perhaps silent spell and still spell feats should also be spellcraft checks, rather than feats. (House Rule Alert!)
Khur said:
I disagree: pulling off a subtle spell should not use bluff. Why? Well...
- #1)Spell casters generally suck at the Bluff skill.
#2)Making the spell "subtle" probably requires extensive knowledge of magic, not skill in lieing to people. After all, spell casting requires verbal components to evoke the magic...it's not put there to impress or intimidate people.
Perhaps instead of a feat, it could simply be a spellcraft roll, with some appropriately high DC. Perhaps silent spell and still spell feats should also be spellcraft checks, rather than feats. (House Rule Alert!)
Last edited:
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Khur, aren't you forgetting about psionic displays?
Khur
Sympathy for the Devil
Re: Thanks ... keep 'em coming!
First, the fact that spellcasters "suck" at Bluff , which I take to mean none of them get it as a class skill, is wholly irrelevant. Just because one can't get really good at a skill doesn't make that skill invalid in application to a particular problem. Suggesting that a spellcaster-oriented ability (making one's spell subtle) shouldn't use a particular skill just because the classes in question don't have access to it as a class skill is illogical. 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?
Second, Bluff has precedent in making others believe one thing is happening, when in fact something entirely different is going on. Hence, Bluff allows a character to feint, create a diversion to hide, and gives a synergy bonus to Pick Pockets (a skill that can also be used to perform sleight of hand or holdout maneuvers). So, Bluff is not merely skill at telling falsehoods.
Third, that Spellcraft is a measure of one's skill with magic is contentious. I admit it does make sense to interpret the skill in such a way. Yet, the PHB clearly states that the skill is used to identify magic, whether while it's being cast or spells already in place. Spellcraft is also used to translate spells from sources other than your own spellbook and to invent new spells, which lends a little bit of credence to your position. It seems that Spellcraft, arguably, is the science of spell construction and deconstruction.
Yet, by the logic of your assertion, a feint should not be a Bluff roll either. By your assertion a feint should be a matter of skill at arms (and that would seem to be true in reality). Whether your logic is faulty is not the point. It's simply a fact that the rules of 3e say a feint is a Bluff. This means a 10th-level Rogue (better at Bluff) is better at feinting than a 10th-level fighter (better at arms). (Fighters "suck" at Bluff too.)
I wouldn't have a problem if you, as my DM, said, "We're going to use Spellcraft as a measure of magical skill. This means if you do anything at all that manipulates magic in any way, it's a Spellcraft check." That's not what the rules say it's for, however.
Thanks for your input. It's appreciated.
As for psionic displays, I didn't forget about them totally. Charm person causes a mental display (tinkling bells). It's hard to say whether a person hearing the display would know what it meant. In other words, it's a lot easier to spot a gesticulating and chanting caster than it is to associate tinkling bells with a psion. Imagine if this "mental display" occured in the middle of a crowded street festival. Now imagine the same festival with a wizard performing arcane somatics. You get the point.
It's fine to disagree with me, but your opinion is slightly askew for few reasons.Nail said:
First, the fact that spellcasters "suck" at Bluff , which I take to mean none of them get it as a class skill, is wholly irrelevant. Just because one can't get really good at a skill doesn't make that skill invalid in application to a particular problem. Suggesting that a spellcaster-oriented ability (making one's spell subtle) shouldn't use a particular skill just because the classes in question don't have access to it as a class skill is illogical. 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?
Second, Bluff has precedent in making others believe one thing is happening, when in fact something entirely different is going on. Hence, Bluff allows a character to feint, create a diversion to hide, and gives a synergy bonus to Pick Pockets (a skill that can also be used to perform sleight of hand or holdout maneuvers). So, Bluff is not merely skill at telling falsehoods.
Third, that Spellcraft is a measure of one's skill with magic is contentious. I admit it does make sense to interpret the skill in such a way. Yet, the PHB clearly states that the skill is used to identify magic, whether while it's being cast or spells already in place. Spellcraft is also used to translate spells from sources other than your own spellbook and to invent new spells, which lends a little bit of credence to your position. It seems that Spellcraft, arguably, is the science of spell construction and deconstruction.
Yet, by the logic of your assertion, a feint should not be a Bluff roll either. By your assertion a feint should be a matter of skill at arms (and that would seem to be true in reality). Whether your logic is faulty is not the point. It's simply a fact that the rules of 3e say a feint is a Bluff. This means a 10th-level Rogue (better at Bluff) is better at feinting than a 10th-level fighter (better at arms). (Fighters "suck" at Bluff too.)
I wouldn't have a problem if you, as my DM, said, "We're going to use Spellcraft as a measure of magical skill. This means if you do anything at all that manipulates magic in any way, it's a Spellcraft check." That's not what the rules say it's for, however.
Thanks for your input. It's appreciated.
As for psionic displays, I didn't forget about them totally. Charm person causes a mental display (tinkling bells). It's hard to say whether a person hearing the display would know what it meant. In other words, it's a lot easier to spot a gesticulating and chanting caster than it is to associate tinkling bells with a psion. Imagine if this "mental display" occured in the middle of a crowded street festival. Now imagine the same festival with a wizard performing arcane somatics. You get the point.
Roland Delacroix
First Post
Re: Re: Thanks ... keep 'em coming!
A common, incorrect, misconception. The only time this would arise is in a 'Psionics are rare' campaign. In that case sure, maybe noone knows what the Psion is doing. In a typical Psionics=Magic campaign the public is EXACTLY as familiar with psionics as they are with magic. Thus Psicraft is the same skill as Spellcraft. This means that a gesticulating wizard has the same connotation for Joe Average as bells ringing in their head. Its still quite easy to pick out the Psion in a crowd, he's the one guy staring at you intently.
WotC publictations seem to suport the target-doesnt-recognize-he's-charmed stamce. Specifically RttToEE, written by Monte Cook, has an NPC who is initially Charmed by an undercover evil cultist yet stays his friend after the charm wears off. Logic would seem to point out that if he had been aware of the charm he would feel enemity towards the cultist, not a friendship. The fact that Monte Cook, one of the designers, takes this stance is just as important IMO. Other publications have had similar histories (WotC and others) but I can't remember any specific ones off the top of my head right now.
EDIT: Spellchack BEFOR you post. Happy Holidays....
Khur said:
As for psionic displays, I didn't forget about them totally. Charm person causes a mental display (tinkling bells). It's hard to say whether a person hearing the display would know what it meant. In other words, it's a lot easier to spot a gesticulating and chanting caster than it is to associate tinkling bells with a psion. Imagine if this "mental display" occured in the middle of a crowded street festival. Now imagine the same festival with a wizard performing arcane somatics. You get the point.
A common, incorrect, misconception. The only time this would arise is in a 'Psionics are rare' campaign. In that case sure, maybe noone knows what the Psion is doing. In a typical Psionics=Magic campaign the public is EXACTLY as familiar with psionics as they are with magic. Thus Psicraft is the same skill as Spellcraft. This means that a gesticulating wizard has the same connotation for Joe Average as bells ringing in their head. Its still quite easy to pick out the Psion in a crowd, he's the one guy staring at you intently.
WotC publictations seem to suport the target-doesnt-recognize-he's-charmed stamce. Specifically RttToEE, written by Monte Cook, has an NPC who is initially Charmed by an undercover evil cultist yet stays his friend after the charm wears off. Logic would seem to point out that if he had been aware of the charm he would feel enemity towards the cultist, not a friendship. The fact that Monte Cook, one of the designers, takes this stance is just as important IMO. Other publications have had similar histories (WotC and others) but I can't remember any specific ones off the top of my head right now.
EDIT: Spellchack BEFOR you post. Happy Holidays....
Last edited:
Khur
Sympathy for the Devil
Ahh, but...
What you say is true Roland, but the mental display occurs in all living creatures within 30 feet, not just the would-be victim. Thus, the "staring at you intently" part doesn't apply to every individual in the area. I think my example (the street festival) still has some validity even in the psionics=magic campaign.
As for the Elemental Evil example ... that's exceptionally valuable to the discussion.
Thanks.
What you say is true Roland, but the mental display occurs in all living creatures within 30 feet, not just the would-be victim. Thus, the "staring at you intently" part doesn't apply to every individual in the area. I think my example (the street festival) still has some validity even in the psionics=magic campaign.
As for the Elemental Evil example ... that's exceptionally valuable to the discussion.
Thanks.
candidus_cogitens
Explorer
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.
In Salvatore's THE LEGACY, the first book in the LEGACY OF THE DROW trilogy, you may recall that the magical ruby pendant (which someone mentioned earlier) is used to persuade people to do very uncharacteristic things. Even several days later, those who were under the influence of the magic do not begin to question their previous behavior until they are really confronted with what they did. So ... using that as an analogy, if you persuade a charmed person to be unconcerned about your spell, that it was a spell to bestow good fortune perhaps, the character would not automatically begin to second-guess that suggestion even after the spell had worn off.
Khur said:
First, the fact that spellcasters "suck" at Bluff , which I take to mean none of them get it as a class skill, is wholly irrelevant. Just because one can't get really good at a skill doesn't make that skill invalid in application to a particular problem. Suggesting that a spellcaster-oriented ability (making one's spell subtle) shouldn't use a particular skill just because the classes in question don't have access to it as a class skill is illogical. 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?
Second, Bluff has precedent in making others believe one thing is happening, when in fact something entirely different is going on. Hence, Bluff allows a character to feint, create a diversion to hide, and gives a synergy bonus to Pick Pockets (a skill that can also be used to perform sleight of hand or holdout maneuvers). So, Bluff is not merely skill at telling falsehoods.
Third, that Spellcraft is a measure of one's skill with magic is contentious. I admit it does make sense to interpret the skill in such a way. Yet, the PHB clearly states that the skill is used to identify magic, whether while it's being cast or spells already in place. Spellcraft is also used to translate spells from sources other than your own spellbook and to invent new spells, which lends a little bit of credence to your position. It seems that Spellcraft, arguably, is the science of spell construction and deconstruction.
Yet, by the logic of your assertion, a feint should not be a Bluff roll either. By your assertion a feint should be a matter of skill at arms (and that would seem to be true in reality). Whether your logic is faulty is not the point. It's simply a fact that the rules of 3e say a feint is a Bluff. This means a 10th-level Rogue (better at Bluff) is better at feinting than a 10th-level fighter (better at arms). (Fighters "suck" at Bluff too.)
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.
In Salvatore's THE LEGACY, the first book in the LEGACY OF THE DROW trilogy, you may recall that the magical ruby pendant (which someone mentioned earlier) is used to persuade people to do very uncharacteristic things. Even several days later, those who were under the influence of the magic do not begin to question their previous behavior until they are really confronted with what they did. So ... using that as an analogy, if you persuade a charmed person to be unconcerned about your spell, that it was a spell to bestow good fortune perhaps, the character would not automatically begin to second-guess that suggestion even after the spell had worn off.
Khur
Sympathy for the Devil
Hmmm....
Excellent analogy from the book. As I said before, there's no reason to assume that a mage must be seen casting the spell at all, as you pointed out. That depends on circumstances.
However, the stories and novels based on WotC properties are supposedly notorious for throwing out the magic system of D&D in favor of drama or action. (As, perhaps one should be for the purposes of story in one's home campaign. In the d20 world, there are alternative magic systems though.)
In one story I remember reading vaguely, three great wizards of Faerun (Elminster, Storm Silverhand, and Khelben Arunsun methinks) fought a single other wizard, whose name I forget. The story says they fought for days, sometimes retreating when exhausted after contesting for all of the daylight hours. Do you know how impossible this is, if each even cast one prepared spell per minute using the D&D system, even considering the use of wondrous and other magic items? (Alternate rules exist, once again, that make such epic battles of magic possible.)
Can we consider the precedents set by these stories relevant to a rule discussion on charm spells? I think they serve as examples of how the spell might be used for flavor and high drama, or even as models upon which to base an alternate rules system, but are risky territory for rules assertions.
Still, I think the important element of your anecdote is that a charmed person may be convinced (after the fact) that their new friend had only good intentions. They may continue to believe this after the magic wears off, especially if nothing particularly untoward happens while the spell is in effect. This idea has perfect relation to an earlier anecdote about Monte Cook's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (a character continues to be the friend of an evil cultist after the charm wears off).
A friend who hasn't posted here suggests that charm person creates a psychological gap, into which the enchanter can insert his or her will. My friend says that after the spell is over, the person so affected remembers the gap, even if there was nothing "big" inserted there (like an action contrary to the victim's nature). Thus, my pal supposes, everyone always remembers the unnatural nature of the charm, at least as an uncanny, "Wow, why was I so open to doing things for that person an hour or so ago?"
I say that gap is only perceived if it's breached by something too big (something allowing a new saving throw). Otherwise, only the suggestions of the enchanter matter in what the victim thinks after the spell in over.
Many here seem to agree with that idea, as does some of the anecdotal evidence. Interesting.
Thanks!
Excellent analogy from the book. As I said before, there's no reason to assume that a mage must be seen casting the spell at all, as you pointed out. That depends on circumstances.
However, the stories and novels based on WotC properties are supposedly notorious for throwing out the magic system of D&D in favor of drama or action. (As, perhaps one should be for the purposes of story in one's home campaign. In the d20 world, there are alternative magic systems though.)
In one story I remember reading vaguely, three great wizards of Faerun (Elminster, Storm Silverhand, and Khelben Arunsun methinks) fought a single other wizard, whose name I forget. The story says they fought for days, sometimes retreating when exhausted after contesting for all of the daylight hours. Do you know how impossible this is, if each even cast one prepared spell per minute using the D&D system, even considering the use of wondrous and other magic items? (Alternate rules exist, once again, that make such epic battles of magic possible.)
Can we consider the precedents set by these stories relevant to a rule discussion on charm spells? I think they serve as examples of how the spell might be used for flavor and high drama, or even as models upon which to base an alternate rules system, but are risky territory for rules assertions.
Still, I think the important element of your anecdote is that a charmed person may be convinced (after the fact) that their new friend had only good intentions. They may continue to believe this after the magic wears off, especially if nothing particularly untoward happens while the spell is in effect. This idea has perfect relation to an earlier anecdote about Monte Cook's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (a character continues to be the friend of an evil cultist after the charm wears off).
A friend who hasn't posted here suggests that charm person creates a psychological gap, into which the enchanter can insert his or her will. My friend says that after the spell is over, the person so affected remembers the gap, even if there was nothing "big" inserted there (like an action contrary to the victim's nature). Thus, my pal supposes, everyone always remembers the unnatural nature of the charm, at least as an uncanny, "Wow, why was I so open to doing things for that person an hour or so ago?"
I say that gap is only perceived if it's breached by something too big (something allowing a new saving throw). Otherwise, only the suggestions of the enchanter matter in what the victim thinks after the spell in over.
Many here seem to agree with that idea, as does some of the anecdotal evidence. Interesting.
Thanks!
Similar Threads
