Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6151464" data-attributes="member: 6681948">First off, similar wording also exists in Pathfinder, without the specific example.  As you note, it is silent on failed saves.  In such cases, the spell does have an effect on the target - a magical compulsion.  The question now simply becomes whether the target knows it was the victim of a spell once its effects have ended.  I'm not sure any spell states the answer one way or the other.  Some seem more obvious than others (Hold Person, for example).  One possible dividing line would be compulsions (Dominate Person, Hold Person) versus less the forceful charms (Charm Person; Suggestion).I note that a DC 25 Sense Motive check enables identification that a person is influenced by an enchantment, (reduced to 15 for a Dominated person).  Perhaps the same rule should apply to the victim, post-save.  I don't see any better skill, off the cuff, for such a self-assessment, assuming the presumption that the knowledge one was a victim of a spell is not automatic at the cessation of the spell.The sucessful save means they know they were the target of a spell.  After watching the caster speak with a strong voice while making measured and precise hand motions, then feeling that little tingle, I'd expect most characters, especially those with any familiarity with magic, to be less than pleased with the caster.  I don't think the means of deducing effect is in any wayimplicit - a Spellcraft check is the RAW means of detecting what spell was cast from observing its casting.As always, choosing interpretations more favourable to the spellcaster where there is some doubt enhances the power of the spellcaster.I note that this non-D&D rule indicates it isn't immediately obvious, and allows a possibility the target does know about the attempt to charm them on a failure.  So the question becomes when does it become obvious (liking that Sense Motive more and more), and how one determines whether a failed attempt was or was not detected.I'm not a 4e expert, off the top.  This, however, seems much more subtle, enhancing diplomacy rather than a Charm effect.Asking anyone "how would magic work" seems unlikely to generate a consensus at all.  Of course, one other aspect not discussed is whether a target would blame a very persuasive Diplomacy check on a magical efect, even when it was not magical.  "I would never have willingly done that - I must have been ensorcelled".  Too late to Detect whether there was a magical effect, as the spell has expired, so tough to prove or disprove.Your statement sounded to me like the social skill must resolve a conflict once and for all ("the NPC can't change his/her mind") for such rules to equate to the narrative control of magic.  I must have interpreted that statement more strongly than you intended it.This is not limited to non-spellcasters.  If all spared prisoners eventually return to threaten the party again, they stop taking prisoners.  When every (most? some?) NPC they befriend betrays them, they start treating them all as enemy combatants.  Once, a villager turned out to be a lycanthrope, so  now every NPC we meet has to submit to a "silver manacles" test before we will extend any trust to him.  And we pour Holy Water on him.  And touch cold iron to his flesh.  Hey, what do you mean the villagers aren't friendly to us?When every attempt at mundane diplomacy (or every one that has any real meaning to the game) is overridden by the GM based on NPC personality and role playing, the players quickly learn not to bother with mundane diplomacy.  If all prisoners are silent from fear of their ultimate master, the players learn not to bother taking prisoners, much less questioning them.Once again, the fighter who devotes all available resources to enhancing his combat abilities now complains that he doesn't have non-combat abilities.  So trade off some of your combat enhancers for some non-combat enhancers.  The game allows a highly focused character - the players choose how narrowly to focus.  If the fighter took a low DEX, specialized in a two handed melee weapon with numerous feats, and spent all his wealth upgrading that weapon, would we feel sorry or him when he complains that he doesn't have a great AC and isn't very useful in ranged combat?  I suspect most of us would point out that every choice he made leads to him being a one trick pony.  So why do we feel sorry for his being ineffective out of combat when he dedicates no resources whatsoever to effectiveness anywhere but in combat?That's probably a main question we should be asking here - is the goal to provide options for these martial characters to have more influence outside combat, is it to add abilities that provide that influence while not requiring any reduction in their combat abilities, or is it to force these out of combat abilities on them.  Because I suspect if we gave them a series of abilities designed to enhance out of combat influence, a portion would want the option of trading off these non-combat abilities for more combat abilities.  Then, a portion of them would still complain they are ineffectual outside combat because "the game forces them" to devote all their resources to combat skills.Maybe the question is how the GM goes about making it clear to players that the game will include non-combat challenges, so being an expert in "just combat" will mean you are bored/frustrated by out of combat challenges, just like a character with tons of skills and non-combat abilities will provide little assistance in combat.  Unfortunatey, what some see as "encouraging a balance", others perceive as "punishing the player" for not designing to the GM's desires or "removing player choice" from character design.</blockquote>

Verification