Is casting a spell considered a threatening action?

[Mirror]

Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell.

Charmed characters themselves has to be threatened by the act, not merely have the act be potentially threatening. If Fascinate's litmus test was used by charm person, a charmed ally fighting by one's side would be impossible.

Also Charming Gaze has no verbal or somatic components. Unless a SLA has a visually obvious effect, all you know was the user looked at you for a few seconds and dropped his guard [ drew an AOO ]. After the effect goes off, if you make the save, this kicks in for what it is worth...

Succeeding on a Saving Throw
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

Its not a SLA, its specifically listed as a SU. Unless I'm mistaken, I was pretty certain that SU doesn't provoke AoO.

 

[kitcik]

1. the target is a rogue. I seriously doubt it can identify spells.
2. The spell COULD be harmful, but it isn't immediate. Its Mark of Justice.
3. The rogue knows its the target, since I told it to sit there while our cleric "helps" it by giving it a magical tattoo that is pretty much invisible and would be cool. I rolled a 40 on that charisma check. I didn't lie, it IS meant to help it, by giving the rogue some outside help to prevent it from stealing. I only charmed the rogue so it would quit fighting us while we take him to jail for robbing people in the first place.

I'll leave the RAW arguments to others. If I was DM and you were putting a tattoo on him that he otherwise would not have wanted, I would give another save vs. the charm.

 

[Greenfield]

Looking at the previously posted text, I'd take a slightly broader view.

Aiming a weapon at the person breaks the effect. Casting a spell at the person breaks the effect.

That's how I'd read that portion.

To be more specific to the situation, I'd say that any action that threatens the target in the target's opinion breaks the spell.

 

[Mirror]

Looking at the previously posted text, I'd take a slightly broader view.

Aiming a weapon at the person breaks the effect. Casting a spell at the person breaks the effect.

That's how I'd read that portion.

To be more specific to the situation, I'd say that any action that threatens the target in the target's opinion breaks the spell.

I aim the hilt of your sword at you to give it back to you. I cast cure minor wounds on you. According to what you are saying, both cases the charm will break, which makes little sense. On top of that, the remainder of what you said needs more clarification: remember, the subject is charmed, so its "opinion" will be slanted in your favor, regardless of what you wish to do. Hell, even in the PHB, it lists as an example telling a char to go hold off a red dragon so you can live. I'm pretty damn certain that under most circumstances, specially if you aren't evil, doing ANYTHING with a red dragon can be considered threatening.

 

[Greenfield]

Point 1: The rules are occasionally silly.
Point 2: If the hilt id towards him the weapon is pointing away.
Point 3: Read the last section.

 

[Mirror]

I'll leave the RAW arguments to others. If I was DM and you were putting a tattoo on him that he otherwise would not have wanted, I would give another save vs. the charm.

I actually want the RAW. Mark of Justice does not initially harm the creature affected, and under most situations, shouldn't do anything at all once the situation was explained. And even then, it doesn't do any actual damage: in this case it just makes the character sick. NOT sickened as in the mechanic, but sick. I don't see what the problem is here, or the conflict to begin with. If the monster is more or less friendly with me, so much that, as written, I'm considered its "trusted friend", why would it doubt me if I said " its not going to hurt in the slightest, and after 10 mins, it wouldn't be like anything has happened." The reason I asked this question, is cause, under the rules for Charm Person, if the creature is threatened by me or an ally, the spell breaks. That is why I want, specifically, some written rule that states casting a spell, regardless of WHAT spell, is considered a threatening action. From what I'm getting from Frankthedm, the creature must feel threatened, which goes back to perception, which we admitted is slanted due to being under the Charm. Unless the rogue spontaneously gained ranks of spellcraft, there shouldn't be any reason for it to resist, and therefore break, the charm. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Point 1: The rules are occasionally silly.
Point 2: If the hilt id towards him the weapon is pointing away.
Point 3: Read the last section.

Point 1: Either the rule is right or it contradicts. That's how I see it.
Point 2: the hilt is the hilt of his sword: a double bladed one. By rights, its an edge pointed at him, but, since he knows his own weapon, and enchanted it, he knows which end does what and labeled them "pointy" and "hilt".
Point 3: huh?

 

[kitcik]

I actually want the RAW. Mark of Justice does not initially harm the creature affected, and under most situations, shouldn't do anything at all once the situation was explained. And even then, it doesn't do any actual damage: in this case it just makes the character sick. NOT sickened as in the mechanic, but sick. I don't see what the problem is here, or the conflict to begin with. If the monster is more or less friendly with me, so much that, as written, I'm considered its "trusted friend", why would it doubt me if I said " its not going to hurt in the slightest, and after 10 mins, it wouldn't be like anything has happened." The reason I asked this question, is cause, under the rules for Charm Person, if the creature is threatened by me or an ally, the spell breaks. That is why I want, specifically, some written rule that states casting a spell, regardless of WHAT spell, is considered a threatening action. From what I'm getting from Frankthedm, the creature must feel threatened, which goes back to perception, which we admitted is slanted due to being under the Charm. Unless the rogue spontaneously gained ranks of spellcraft, there shouldn't be any reason for it to resist, and therefore break, the charm. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, I'm not saying you're wrong. Your position is not unreasonable.

But, just playing the devil's advocate, consider that it is "Charm Person" not "Stupidify Person." Now let's pretend that there is something you like to do (play D&D) and you have a friend that you like and generally trust, but you know that person does not approve of D&D. One day, they sit you in a chair and say "trust me, this won't hurt" and take out a tattoo machine. What would you do?

 

[Talonblaze]

In my opinion it would be in most cases, not just because of the effects of the spell.

There is usually many reasons why some would find it threatening;
1) They can't identify the spell. Thus spellcasting is generalized as being negative. (After all, when players see a wizard casting a spell in front of them they aren't assuming he is casting Message.)

2) Alignment or Code reasons; Some class could define their code or conduct or alignment standings as a reason to count it as threatening if the task, spell or even opposing character is of the opposite alignment or trying to break that code. As it 'threatens' their standing, be it with the gods (sometimes having deadly effects) or otherwise. But this is a subjective rule.

3) Generally even casting Resurrection can be a threatening spell in the right hands. After all, you can't say that a Charmed Fighter wearing dragonhide armor at the time of casting isn't gonna find that a bit troublesome.

If the spell is identified, it would be a bit more subjective and most likely go through instance cases like 2 or 3, (There's probably more, just can't think of them at this time.) before its determined if its considered threatening or not.

 

[Greenfield]

I don't think you actually want RAW.

By RAW, as soon as you start to cast a spell, any spell, on the target, it's all over. It could be "Save you From a Terrible Fate XVII" for all it matters, the RAW doesn't make any distinctions between beneficial spells, harmful spells, or simple utility spells.

Consider telling him to get some rest, then applying the Mark while he's asleep. If he doesn't know a spell is being cast at him, he can't be threatened by it.

 

[PureGoldx58]

I don't think you actually want RAW.

By RAW, as soon as you start to cast a spell, any spell, on the target, it's all over. It could be "Save you From a Terrible Fate XVII" for all it matters, the RAW doesn't make any distinctions between beneficial spells, harmful spells, or simple utility spells.

Consider telling him to get some rest, then applying the Mark while he's asleep. If he doesn't know a spell is being cast at him, he can't be threatened by it.

I believe it spells this out in the Invisibility description and somewhere else when looking for the definition of hostile act.