Spellcasting from hiding

[Beruin]

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.

[geeman]

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.

[Birthright-L]

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.

[Azrai]

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"...

[ConjurerDragon]

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.

[doom]

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.

[geeman]

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

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.

[irdeggman]

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.