Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1
    Senior Member Beruin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    228
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    Okay, this may sound a bit stupid, but I can`t remember if I ever read an answer to this one anywhere.

    Our last session ended right in the middle of things, with the players in hiding and a gnoll guard (1st lvl ranger) near. Taking out the guard silently will probably make their assault on the gnoll`s lair much more easier.
    My player will probably try to use a mind-influencing spell like sleep to take the gnoll out.

    What happens if the gnoll makes his save? Will he still be unaware of the players or will he sense that someone tried to mess with his mind?

    Should this be handled similar to detect scrying?

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been."
    - The Three Kingdoms, attributed to Luo Guanzhong, c.1330-c.1400

  2. #2
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 03:51 PM 2/27/2003 +0100, Christoph Tiemann wrote:

    >Our last session ended right in the middle of things, with the players in
    >hiding and a gnoll guard (1st lvl ranger) near. Taking out the guard
    >silently will probably make their assault on the gnoll`s lair much more easier.
    >My player will probably try to use a mind-influencing spell like sleep to
    >take the gnoll out.
    >
    >What happens if the gnoll makes his save? Will he still be unaware of the
    >players or will he sense that someone tried to mess with his mind?
    >
    >Should this be handled similar to detect scrying?

    This kind of thing keeps coming up in my sessions too, mostly in regards to
    charm spells. I haven`t seen a solution in any of the D&D materials that
    is very helpful. There are a few feats that allow spellcasters to cast
    their spells in a clandestine fashion (like Silent Spell) but they don`t
    really address exactly how to deal with someone trying to attack with magic
    without being seen. A more general guideline is necessary.

    What I`m thinking of doing is making an attempt to cast a spell without
    being seen a simple Hide check, opposed by the target creature`s
    Spot. Actually, I use a more generalized skill called Sneak that includes
    the functions of both Hide and Move Silently, so this concept fits a little
    better because it`s not quite painful to add whole new definitions to
    skills if they are meant to be more generalized in the first place. You
    could just use Hide, but I think an argument could be made that a
    spellcaster might need to make a Hide check for any spell with a material,
    focus or somatic component, and a Move Silently check for those with a
    verbal component--maybe one for each--all of which would be opposed by
    appropriate Spot and Listen checks.

    There would be various modifiers reflecting the difficulty of hiding
    various types of spellcasting. Things like distance and the type of
    material components needed to cast the spell. These modifiers should be
    reflected as penalties to the spellcaster`s Hide (Sneak) check.

    Condition Modifier
    V component -5
    S component -5
    M component -5
    F component -5
    Visible effect * -5/spell level
    Has surprise +5
    Each 30` distance +2

    * A visible effect represents the spell having a physical, visible
    manifestation such as the energy bolts of a magic missile, the ray of a Ray
    of Enfeeblement, etc. Those effects tend to be more dramatic as spell
    level increases, hence the -5/spell level penalty. In such cases the fact
    that a spell has been cast is, of course, obvious but a spellcaster might
    be able to conceal that the spell effect came from him. Charm spells, for
    instance, do not have a visible effect and would not suffer this penalty.

    In this context, the feats used to hide spellcasting then can be cast as
    reducing or eliminating the penalty for a particular kind of spell
    component. A silent spell could be cast without suffering the -5 penalty
    for V components.

    Note that a character could make this opposed roll and then fail the saving
    throw for the spell. A charmed character then would know that he was
    charmed. That knowledge wouldn`t effect any aspect of the spell`s
    effect... at least until the it wears off.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    BR mailing list
    Posts
    1,562
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    If you make a save, you know that something happened - but not what, or by
    whom.

    It says so somewhere under saves in the PH.

    /Carl

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Christoph Tiemann" <tiemach@UNI-MUENSTER.DE>
    To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
    Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:51 PM
    Subject: Spellcasting from hiding


    Okay, this may sound a bit stupid, but I can`t remember if I ever read an
    answer to this one anywhere.

    Our last session ended right in the middle of things, with the players in
    hiding and a gnoll guard (1st lvl ranger) near. Taking out the guard
    silently will probably make their assault on the gnoll`s lair much more
    easier.
    My player will probably try to use a mind-influencing spell like sleep to
    take the gnoll out.

    What happens if the gnoll makes his save? Will he still be unaware of the
    players or will he sense that someone tried to mess with his mind?

    Should this be handled similar to detect scrying?

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.



    __________________________________________________ ___
    Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express
    Se mer på: http://se.docs.yahoo.com/info/express/help/index.html

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Germany near Frankfurt
    Posts
    295
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Casting a spell unnoticed out of a shadow is not possible. Sleep has V, S, M components. I would allow it only if the character has something like Silent Spell or if he is really far away from the target.

    After the spell the recipient knows that he has been manipulated. Spells like charm person could easily be detected by the recipient, even who has casted it can be found out. Rember, the time of the "awakenig" or clear mind of the target is unknown. In the case of charm person he may remember someone who "gave him the friendly advices"...
    my purpose is now to lead you into the Pallace where you shall have a clear and delightful view of all those various objects, and scattered excellencies, that lye up and down upon the face of creation, which are only seen by those that go down into the Seas, and by no other....

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary wrote:

    > At 03:51 PM 2/27/2003 +0100, Christoph Tiemann wrote:
    >
    >> Our last session ended right in the middle of things, with the
    >> players in
    >> hiding and a gnoll guard (1st lvl ranger) near. Taking out the guard
    >> silently will probably make their assault on the gnoll`s lair much
    >> more easier.
    >> My player will probably try to use a mind-influencing spell like
    >> sleep to
    >> take the gnoll out.
    >> What happens if the gnoll makes his save? Will he still be unaware of
    >> the
    >> players or will he sense that someone tried to mess with his mind?
    >> Should this be handled similar to detect scrying?
    >
    > This kind of thing keeps coming up in my sessions too, mostly in
    > regards to
    > charm spells. I haven`t seen a solution in any of the D&D materials that
    > is very helpful. There are a few feats that allow spellcasters to cast
    > their spells in a clandestine fashion (like Silent Spell) but they don`t
    > really address exactly how to deal with someone trying to attack with
    > magic
    > without being seen. A more general guideline is necessary.
    >
    > What I`m thinking of doing is making an attempt to cast a spell without
    > being seen a simple Hide check, opposed by the target creature`s
    > Spot. Actually, I use a more generalized skill called Sneak that
    > includes
    > the functions of both Hide and Move Silently, so this concept fits a
    > little
    > better because it`s not quite painful to add whole new definitions to
    > skills if they are meant to be more generalized in the first place. You
    > could just use Hide, but I think an argument could be made that a
    > spellcaster might need to make a Hide check for any spell with a
    > material,
    > focus or somatic component, and a Move Silently check for those with a
    > verbal component--maybe one for each--all of which would be opposed by
    > appropriate Spot and Listen checks.
    >
    > There would be various modifiers reflecting the difficulty of hiding
    > various types of spellcasting. Things like distance and the type of
    > material components needed to cast the spell. These modifiers should be
    > reflected as penalties to the spellcaster`s Hide (Sneak) check.
    >
    > Condition Modifier
    > V component -5
    > S component -5
    > M component -5
    > F component -5
    > Visible effect * -5/spell level
    > Has surprise +5
    > Each 30` distance +2
    >
    > * A visible effect represents the spell having a physical, visible
    > manifestation such as the energy bolts of a magic missile, the ray of
    > a Ray
    > of Enfeeblement, etc. Those effects tend to be more dramatic as spell
    > level increases, hence the -5/spell level penalty. In such cases the
    > fact
    > that a spell has been cast is, of course, obvious but a spellcaster might
    > be able to conceal that the spell effect came from him. Charm spells,
    > for
    > instance, do not have a visible effect and would not suffer this penalty.
    >
    > In this context, the feats used to hide spellcasting then can be cast as
    > reducing or eliminating the penalty for a particular kind of spell
    > component. A silent spell could be cast without suffering the -5 penalty
    > for V components.
    >
    > Note that a character could make this opposed roll and then fail the
    > saving
    > throw for the spell. A charmed character then would know that he was
    > charmed. That knowledge wouldn`t effect any aspect of the spell`s
    > effect... at least until the it wears off.
    > Gary

    Travis Doom´s 3E Manual already had a mechanic for "quietly" casting
    without someone noticing. A concentration check against DC 15+spell
    level. Bluff of 5+ ranks gave 2 synergy bonus. Concentration because
    it´s harder to cast and concentrate on your spell, when you do not want
    someone else to notice, what I see as fitting.

    The suggestion for a Hide/MoveSilently vs. a spot check I do not like if
    the caster is not in a line of sight to the target of the spell.
    If the gnoll in question does look the other way, and the only thing
    that happens is the sleep spell, then I think not spot, but a spellcraft
    check would be proper to see if the gnoll does not only notice a strange
    tingle he can´t identify and does not care about or if he the target
    recognizes the strange feeling as a magical attack. As most gnolls would
    not have the spellcraft skill, the gnoll who is not much more than a
    beast, would notice a strange feeling, would be unable to identify it
    and shrug it off without doing anything IMO.
    bye
    Michael Romes

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA.
    Posts
    626
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:51:16PM +0100, Christoph Tiemann wrote:
    > Okay, this may sound a bit stupid, but I can`t remember if I ever read an answer to this one anywhere.
    >
    > Our last session ended right in the middle of things, with the players in hiding and a gnoll guard (1st lvl ranger) near. Taking out the guard silently will probably make their assault on the gnoll`s lair much more easier.
    > My player will probably try to use a mind-influencing spell like sleep to take the gnoll out.
    >
    > What happens if the gnoll makes his save? Will he still be unaware of the players or will he sense that someone tried to mess with his mind?
    >
    > Should this be handled similar to detect scrying?

    I think that the "cannon" answer is that a magical attack is noticable
    as an attack. The "Save" process supposes that the target notices the
    effect and uses their natural or trained talents to fight of the
    effect. Thus, any character that makes a saving throw should be aware
    of the "general" attack.

    Like an arrow shot from the darkness, however, simply knowing that you
    were attacked does not tell you who/where the attack came from. I`d
    say that listen and spot checks to detect spell casters should be
    more or less on par with detecting any ranged attack from ambush.

    LISTEN:
    Generally spellcasting is quite loud, so a fairly easy listen check (DC
    5 + 1 per 10 feet, if memory serves) should allow the target to
    determine the general direction. If the check exceeds the DC by 20 I
    think that the caster`s location would be identified to the exact 5ft
    square. If the spell is cast silently, then the DC would be dependent
    on spoting. If the spell is cast silently, then there should probably
    still be an opposed Listen VS. Move Silently check to ID the caster`s
    movement.

    SPOT:
    Casting a spell requires some fairly serious gyrations (possibly with
    pyrotechnics, glowing tracery in the air, and other special effects).
    The special effects of spell casting are left fairly open, I think.
    (In any event, I can`t quote a rule for it). My gut would be to go
    with the same general DC as the listen check - a base DC of 5 or so.
    If the caster has the still spell feat, then their would still be the
    oppotunity to have an opposed Spot Vs. Hide check to find the caster
    after alerted.

    I`d avoid the use of the "SCRY" check to detect the spell casting.

    - Doom

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  7. #7
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 06:10 PM 2/27/2003 +0100, Michael Romes wrote:

    >Travis Doom´s 3E Manual already had a mechanic for "quietly" casting
    >without someone noticing. A concentration check against DC 15+spell
    >level. Bluff of 5+ ranks gave 2 synergy bonus. Concentration because
    >it´s harder to cast and concentrate on your spell, when you do not want
    >someone else to notice, what I see as fitting.

    A Concentration check would probably be appropriate given that casting a
    spell "on the quiet" would be more difficult than doing so outright, bit it
    doesn`t really have much to do with whether or not the spellcasting itself
    is noticed, though, does it? It`s more about wether or not the spellcaster
    can successfully get his spell off rather than whether or not the target
    notices the effort.

    >The suggestion for a Hide/MoveSilently vs. a spot check I do not like if
    >the caster is not in a line of sight to the target of the spell.
    >If the gnoll in question does look the other way, and the only thing
    >that happens is the sleep spell, then I think not spot, but a spellcraft
    >check would be proper to see if the gnoll does not only notice a strange
    >tingle he can´t identify and does not care about or if he the target
    >recognizes the strange feeling as a magical attack. As most gnolls would
    >not have the spellcraft skill, the gnoll who is not much more than a
    >beast, would notice a strange feeling, would be unable to identify it
    >and shrug it off without doing anything IMO.

    It seems to me there are three aspects of this issue that are getting a
    little confused, so let me try to break them down a bit.

    The first issue is whether or not the spellcaster can successfully get his
    spell off. This assumes that he`s trying to cast the spell in a way that
    will not attract a lot of attention, and that if most spellcasting is
    obvious (the spellcaster waves his arms in the air and speaks his
    incarnation in a loud, clear voice) then an attempt to cast a spell without
    calling attention to the spellcaster would require a Concentration check in
    order to make the spell function. Something like the low end of the
    Concentration check (DC 10 + spell level) seems appropriate to me here. DC
    15 + spell level with a Bluff skill synergy modifier seems a bit high to me
    considering that a DC 15 Concentration check equates to a galloping horse
    or taking 5 hp of continuous damage.

    Second, if the spellcaster is trying to conceal his spellcasting then there
    needs to be some sort of way to gauge how well he concealed his
    activities. At the very least there needs to be a way for people in the
    area to recognize the spellcasting taking place. Doom`s rules for casting
    spells quietly would appear to assume that a Concentration check to
    successfully cast a spell covertly means it isn`t noticed, but I think I`d
    prefer to have that handled by the relative skills/abilities of the
    creature doing the observing (or not) rather than based that solely on the
    skill of the spellcaster. I suggested Hide in the previous post, but I
    could also see an argument for Pick Pockets, since that skill really
    includes many sorts of sleight of hand type activities, not just picking
    pockets. At this point I could see an argument for either--which means I`m
    probably going to playtest either before/if I settle on one or the
    other. One could apply the Bluff synergy bonus here, since I think it
    would be more appropriate to the concealment attempt than to the ability to
    get the spell off.

    Third, the target of a successfully cast spell who makes his saving throw
    will realize he`s had a spell cast on him. According to the PHB (p150) "A
    creature that successfully saves against a spell without obvious physical
    effects feels a hostile force or tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature
    of the attack." If, however, he didn`t observe the spellcaster (or
    recognize that the spellcaster was casting the spell) then he`d not know
    the source of the attack. Nor does he necessarily know the type of spell
    being cast on him. A Spellcraft check would be appropriate for the latter
    issue.

    So let`s say we`ve got an NPC guard that a wizard is casting sleep on. The
    wizard stands there humming, rocking back and forth on his heels with his
    hands folded behind his back and casts his spell as quietly and carefully
    as he can. "Hmm, hmm, hmm. Somanbulum ecto homin... hmm, hmm." He
    twiddles his fingers a bit here and there, and casually points at the
    guard, sprinkles some sand and drops a live cricket. This is more
    difficult than simply saying the spell`s verbal components outright while
    pointing dramatically at the target and tossing sand and insects at
    him--the typical way of casting a spell in dramatic D&D fashion--so the
    spellcaster much make a Concentration check to pull it off. Furthermore,
    the guard may or may not recognize that a spell is being cast in his
    presence. He may not even see the spellcaster`s twiddling fingers, nor
    hear the mumbled words or sand and insects hitting the floorboards. Note
    that the Hide (or Pick Pocket) check should still be made whether or not
    the Concentration check was successful. If the Concentration check failed
    and the guard did not recognize that a spell was being cast he would have
    no magical effect to save from and, therefore, no "force or tingle" to
    notice. He may just look up and say, "Pardon me, sir, but you appear to
    have dropped your cricket." If he did recognize that a spell was being
    attempted, however, he`d jump up and sound the alarm.

    OK, so here`s it spelled out.

    Step #1: The spellcaster makes a concentration check to cast a sleep spell
    on a guard without the guard noticing.

    Step #2: Whether the spellcaster`s concentration check works or not he must
    also make an attempt to Hide his spellcasting, which the guard gets an
    attempt to recognize. Here`s where some of those things I listed in the
    previous post might come into effect. How far away is the spellcaster from
    his target? What kinds of components does his spellcasting require? What
    is the physical manifestation of the spell? Things like that.

    Note that a guard with his back turned standing 200` away probably wouldn`t
    have much of a chance to recognize a spell being cast. The DM should take
    notice of the fact that he`s not seeing the spellcaster who should not,
    therefore, suffer penalties for S and M components. In fact, in retrospect
    it would probably be better for those modifiers to effect the target(s)
    Spot check rather than the spellcaster`s Hide (or Pick Pocket) check since
    there could be two or more characters in the area who might recognize the
    spellcasting attempt.

    An already hidden or otherwise concealed spellcaster probably could still
    have to make either of these checks. Several of the modifiers would to see
    the spell would not apply, but he could still hear (Listen check) a spell
    with a verbal component being cast, or notice some disturbance out of the
    corner of his eye as somatic components are being performed.

    Step #3: Whether or not the guard actually sees that a spell has been cast
    if he makes his saving throw he knows he`s been targeted. He does not
    necessarily know who targeted him, however. If he recognized the
    spellcaster`s efforst in Step #2 above then, of course, he knows and if the
    spellcaster is in full view then he probably can put two and two
    together. (Depending on the circumstances.)

    I know this seems like a lot of hoops to jump through, but as I noted this
    has been happening a lot in my sessions lately, so I don`t think a set of
    guidelines that are more carefully articulated is a bad thing. In
    practice, I don`t think it`ll be all that difficult to play out, even if
    the explanation was verbose.

    Often D&D spellcasters go about charming, sleeping or otherwise bewitching
    NPCs without a second thought, which is something of an irony considering
    such spells are a very real physical assault, and it was the mere
    accusation of such powers that got many people burned at the stake, dunked
    in rivers, etc. Rules that would give them a bit more pause in this area
    are probably a good thing.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary wrote:

    > ...
    > Step #1: The spellcaster makes a concentration check to cast a sleep
    > spell on a guard without the guard noticing.
    >
    > Step #2: Whether the spellcaster`s concentration check works or not he
    > must also make an attempt to Hide his spellcasting, which the guard
    > gets an attempt to recognize. Here`s where some of those things I
    > listed in the previous post might come into effect. How far away is
    > the spellcaster from his target? What kinds of components does his
    > spellcasting require? What is the physical manifestation of the
    > spell? Things like that.

    That is perhaps irritating. Concentration to succeed getting the spell
    off, despite murmuring instead of clearly speaking and weaving arms only
    slightly instead of like windmills - if the Concentration check would be
    to "cast a sleep spell without the guard noticing" then the hide check
    would not be necessary. As far as I understand the Concentration check
    is to see if the spell succeeds being cast despite the higher effort to
    hide the spell with a hide check, right?

    > Step #3: Whether or not the guard actually sees that a spell has been
    > cast if he makes his saving throw he knows he`s been targeted. He
    > does not necessarily know who targeted him, however. If he recognized
    > the spellcaster`s efforst in Step #2 above then, of course, he knows
    > and if the spellcaster is in full view then he probably can put two
    > and two together. (Depending on the circumstances.)
    > I know this seems like a lot of hoops to jump through, but as I noted
    > this has been happening a lot in my sessions lately, so I don`t think
    > a set of guidelines that are more carefully articulated is a bad
    > thing. In practice, I don`t think it`ll be all that difficult to play
    > out, even if the explanation was verbose.
    > Often D&D spellcasters go about charming, sleeping or otherwise
    > bewitching NPCs without a second thought, which is something of an
    > irony considering such spells are a very real physical assault, and it
    > was the mere accusation of such powers that got many people burned at
    > the stake, dunked in rivers, etc. Rules that would give them a bit
    > more pause in this area are probably a good thing.
    > Gary

    I do not think that any character who is the target of a spell and makes
    his saving throw automatically should know anything. Not who has cast
    the spell, as you already mentioned. However also not from where a spell
    came, nor even if it was a spell.

    To understand that it was a spell would require more intelligence than
    in my opinion a dumb gnoll humanoid (or 1st level gnoll ranger as far as
    I remember the example) could have. And recognizing what spell has been
    cast on him would definitely require a successful Spellcraft check.

    In the second point about charms used too often without second thought I
    agree wholeheartedly.
    The roleplaying issue of enchantment/charm school spells and their
    practioners shunned in Anuire (as per the Book of Magecraft) does not
    interest most players as they can justify somehow the use or even
    knowledge of spells an NPC would think perhaps even as evil due to
    cultural bias. And what I miss in the 3E charm person description is the
    sentence of the 2E charm person spell: "Note that the subject has full
    memory of the events that took place while he was charmed". A good
    example is the charming that the Wizards does in "The Hag´s contract"
    with Parniel Bowspear - Bowspear knows that he had been charmed when the
    spell wears off...
    bye
    Michael Romes

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary wrote:

    > ...
    > Step #1: The spellcaster makes a concentration check to cast a sleep
    > spell on a guard without the guard noticing.
    >
    > Step #2: Whether the spellcaster`s concentration check works or not he
    > must also make an attempt to Hide his spellcasting, which the guard
    > gets an attempt to recognize. Here`s where some of those things I
    > listed in the previous post might come into effect. How far away is
    > the spellcaster from his target? What kinds of components does his
    > spellcasting require? What is the physical manifestation of the
    > spell? Things like that.

    That is perhaps irritating. Concentration to succeed getting the spell
    off, despite murmuring instead of clearly speaking and weaving arms only
    slightly instead of like windmills - if the Concentration check would be
    to "cast a sleep spell without the guard noticing" then the hide check
    would not be necessary. As far as I understand the Concentration check
    is to see if the spell succeeds being cast despite the higher effort to
    hide the spell with a hide check, right?

    > Step #3: Whether or not the guard actually sees that a spell has been
    > cast if he makes his saving throw he knows he`s been targeted. He
    > does not necessarily know who targeted him, however. If he recognized
    > the spellcaster`s efforst in Step #2 above then, of course, he knows
    > and if the spellcaster is in full view then he probably can put two
    > and two together. (Depending on the circumstances.)
    > I know this seems like a lot of hoops to jump through, but as I noted
    > this has been happening a lot in my sessions lately, so I don`t think
    > a set of guidelines that are more carefully articulated is a bad
    > thing. In practice, I don`t think it`ll be all that difficult to play
    > out, even if the explanation was verbose.
    > Often D&D spellcasters go about charming, sleeping or otherwise
    > bewitching NPCs without a second thought, which is something of an
    > irony considering such spells are a very real physical assault, and it
    > was the mere accusation of such powers that got many people burned at
    > the stake, dunked in rivers, etc. Rules that would give them a bit
    > more pause in this area are probably a good thing.
    > Gary

    I do not think that any character who is the target of a spell and makes
    his saving throw automatically should know anything. Not who has cast
    the spell, as you already mentioned. However also not from where a spell
    came, nor even if it was a spell.

    To understand that it was a spell would require more intelligence than
    in my opinion a dumb gnoll humanoid (or 1st level gnoll ranger as far as
    I remember the example) could have. And recognizing what spell has been
    cast on him would definitely require a successful Spellcraft check.

    In the second point about charms used too often without second thought I
    agree wholeheartedly.
    The roleplaying issue of enchantment/charm school spells and their
    practioners shunned in Anuire (as per the Book of Magecraft) does not
    interest most players as they can justify somehow the use or even
    knowledge of spells an NPC would think perhaps even as evil due to
    cultural bias. And what I miss in the 3E charm person description is the
    sentence of the 2E charm person spell: "Note that the subject has full
    memory of the events that took place while he was charmed". A good
    example is the charming that the Wizards does in "The Hag´s contract"
    with Parniel Bowspear - Bowspear knows that he had been charmed when the
    spell wears off...
    bye
    Michael Romes

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  10. #10
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I swear that I read somewhere (I just can't find it) that if a person is charmed, once the charm wears off he doesn't realize that he was under the influence. This makes a lot of sense since the person while charmed actually believes that whatever he is doing is his own idea and that it was the "right" thing to do at the time. I believe this is why the 3rd ed version of the spell had the description modified.
    Duane Eggert

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.