Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khur" data-source="post: 503207" data-attributes="member: 5583">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.) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification