Do you know when you shrug off a spell?

[Greybar]

I'm curious how other people run this in their games.

A PC is hit with a mind-affecting spell, but they make their Will save and shrug it off. Do they know that a spell was cast on them?

Generally I've judged this from the drama side, to be honest. If a stealthy enemy works a Charm Person in the midst of an innocent conversation, and the character doesn't have any way of recognizing it (i.e. Spellcraft) then they don't notice it. But if a spell hits them (even if they can't see the caster) in the middle of a dramatic combat scene then that's different. For instance a failed "Hold Person" spell from a ice-themed evil priest might cause me to describe that the character "feels chills run over your muscles, binding them, but with a shiver the feeling passes."

What do you do? Are there any definitive rules on this?

John

 

[Crothian]

I think you know when ever your character makes a saving throw. However, you might not know why that saving throw was made.

 

[0-hr]

The rules are that you know when you make a save (you feel a tingle or some such) but you don't always know the source.

As a caster, you know when your target makes a save (but not with area of effect spells).

In our campaign, we favor the dramatic interpretation as well. We even go so far as to allow a Charm Person to be cast through normal conversion with no-one the wiser.

 

[FCWesel]

Knowing what you know..you know?

Hey guys.

We go for the dramatic thing too. As GM I always try and give a very subtle clue as to the nature of the spell, telling the target of the spell that they feel some minor effect begin then they feel the spell fizzle out.

For example. A PC is walking along the tunnels of some ruins and suddenly <GM asks Player to make D20 roll; I check his Will Save secretly to see if he made it: he did.> you begin to feel your muscles start to tighten when suddenly your body will pushes your body free and knee-jerk out of some magical effect. Suddenly three drow jump from a darkned corner, one in robes looking pissed...begins weaving hs words and hands into another spell effect.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Uller]

This is getting into house rules, but I allow Bards to make a perform check vs. sense motive or spell craft (whichever is higher) to cast a spell without other noticing.

I would probably allow someone to use Bluff to hide a spell if they wanted.

Just playing devil's advocate here...The problem though is that if you use this _against_ the PCs, you open yourself up to a lot of whining. It would be valid for them to argue that it should be easy to notice someone casting any spell that has verbal and/or somatic components. This is what Silent Spell and Still Spell feats are for, after all...

 

[Dr. Zoom]

I'm curious how other people run this in their games.

A PC is hit with a mind-affecting spell, but they make their Will save and shrug it off. Do they know that a spell was cast on them?

What do you do? Are there any definitive rules on this?

John

Yes they know that a spell was cast on them. The definitive rules on this are found in the PH, page 150, Succeeding at a Saving Throw.

 

[Larcen]

... This is what Silent Spell and Still Spell feats are for, after all...

Idon't think so. I think the original intent of Silent Spell and Still Spell were to allow ways of getting around a Silence Spell and being held or bound, respectively. However, nothing wrong with using them to be sneaky as well, as you suggest.

 

[Shaele]

>> This is getting into house rules, but I allow Bards to make a perform check vs. sense motive or spell craft (whichever is higher) to cast a spell without other noticing.

In the Song & Silence book, there's a feat that allows bards to cast a spell in the middle of a performance, unseen. Pretty cool.

 

[BBrendolfus]

In our game we play that it is felt:

Spellcasters know when their magic has taken effect or not, e.g. 'dispel magic' has unwoven a spell, when successful or it has failed to unravel the spell if unsuccessful.

Those being subject to a spell and saved know they were 'magicked' and get a hint as to what it was generally about. e.g. 'slow' would feel like a sluggish mantle that the PC has shrugged off.

Unless the spell has an obvious source however those subject may not be able to immediately see the caster. Somatic and verbal componants can be important for identifying the caster in this case.

Enchantments are the main culprits for the above.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Idon't think so. I think the original intent of Silent Spell and Still Spell were to allow ways of getting around a Silence Spell and being held or bound, respectively. However, nothing wrong with using them to be sneaky as well, as you suggest.

No, Silent Spell and Still spell are to get rid of the components for whatever reason you need them.

If you start speaking in another language (that isn't spoken anywhere, and is known to other spellcasters as an arcane language), and speak rhythmically, people might get suspicious. You could, of course, whisper the spell (if the DM allows that), but it can still be detected.

Also, if you start to gesticulate wildly, they might know that something's wrong, too. You can try to hide that, too, but it's not fool proof. Especially if the other has spellcraft, he'll likely know the spell nonetheless