Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mooncalf 11-15-07, 06:04 PM	Not only suggestion, but also Dominate, Charm and various other spells and abilities that have no flashy visual or auditory effects. Let's say a sorcerer is sneaking up behind a guard and silently casts a Charm spell. Does he get some sort of response, a feeling that the spell took effect/slipped off, or is there no response? The spell description says nothing about the subject. It has some obvious ramifications; if he knows the spell took effect, he can step out and interact with his new friend, but if he doesn't know, he's taking a big risk. Which would thus make the spell totally useless in such a situation. The reason I'm bringing it up is because a friend, when he DMs, likes to withhold any response; he thinks it makes things more interesting with a bit of uncertainty. I think it's stupid since it makes things too risky. And while it hasn't come up yet in any game I DM, it may, so I'd rather have an unbiased view. Any thoughts?
Sarella Starshine 11-15-07, 07:28 PM	pg 177 of the phb acctually talks about this. to summerize, yes, you would know if it failed or succeeded against the target. the target knows when it has made a saving throw, but does not know that it had failed.
VulcanStormwrath 11-15-07, 07:31 PM	And a DC 10 sense motive check should suffice in any case.
PenderGrass 11-15-07, 07:32 PM	From the SRD: THE SPELL’S RESULT Once you know which creatures (or objects or areas) are affected, and whether those creatures have made successful saving throws (if any were allowed), you can apply whatever results a spell entails. As the caster, you will automatically know who made or didn't make saves vs. your spells - unless some sort of special circumstance overrides this standard operating procedure. Of course, a quick-thinking NPC might attempt a bluff to convince the caster he has become charmed when in fact he hasn't been charmed at all. :dragon: *****
Colmarr 11-15-07, 08:35 PM	Succeeding on a Saving Throw ... 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. The caster knows when creatures save against their targetted spells (which includes most if not all charm/compulsion effects). {I'm not sure if the quoted text is the rule that Sarella was referring to.}
Sarella Starshine 11-16-07, 03:12 AM	The caster knows when creatures save against their targetted spells (which includes most if not all charm/compulsion effects). {I'm not sure if the quoted text is the rule that Sarella was referring to.} (it was)
Mooncalf 11-16-07, 07:44 AM	Thank you. Having a written rule to refer to will help. Much obliged.
rimble 11-16-07, 12:38 PM	From the SRD: Of course, a quick-thinking NPC might attempt a bluff to convince the caster he has become charmed when in fact he hasn't been charmed at all. Protection from Evil/Good can muck things up good...you sense they failed their save, your spell is in effect on them, but they don't feel compelled by anything you say.
PenderGrass 11-16-07, 01:14 PM	Protection from Evil/Good can muck things up good...you sense they failed their save, your spell is in effect on them, but they don't feel compelled by anything you say. Good call. :dragon: *****
Tedronai 11-17-07, 11:43 PM	Of course, a quick-thinking NPC might attempt a bluff to convince the caster he has become charmed when in fact he hasn't been charmed at all. Only if that creature is aware of what specific effect they were exposed to, and it's usual repurcussions. If the spell was Suggestion, or some other such variable effect, the bluff will be nigh-impossible, since they don't know what they're supposed to be doing.
Legdiwena 11-19-07, 03:24 PM	IIRC, if they make the saving throw, they still get mental instructions but are under no compulsion to obey them.
Fitz10019 11-19-07, 04:12 PM	Of course, a quick-thinking NPC might attempt a bluff to convince the caster he has become charmed when in fact he hasn't been charmed at all. But if the caster is supposed to know the result (not think, or assume, but know), then how can he/she be bluffed about it? For that bluff to succeed, I think it would have to beat the Sense Motive and the Spellcraft of the caster, or let the caster use the stronger of the two.
PenderGrass 11-19-07, 04:29 PM	But if the caster is supposed to know the result (not think, or assume, but know), then how can he/she be bluffed about it? For that bluff to succeed, I think it would have to beat the Sense Motive and the Spellcraft of the caster, or let the caster use the stronger of the two. It would definitely have to be a skilled bluff attempt. Not easily accomplished, but - as with any skill - doable by someone that is very skilled. :dragon: *****
Marcus Majarra 11-19-07, 08:16 PM	I doubt it would be something you could bluff your way through (I'd impose a penalty of at least -20 to -30 on the Bluff check), since the caster knows that his spell failed. It's like saying that someone could bluff you into thinking that 2 + 2 does not equal 4.
Nom 11-19-07, 09:31 PM	The point is that a charm on a character under PFE will succeed. It will just be ineffective while the PFE is up. PFE explicitly doesn't actually prevent the effect, merely render it ineffective while protected.
PenderGrass 11-20-07, 12:43 AM	I doubt it would be something you could bluff your way through (I'd impose a penalty of at least -20 to -30 on the Bluff check), since the caster knows that his spell failed. It's like saying that someone could bluff you into thinking that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. Agreed. Or like saying that if I go on 14 each round, that I am getting more than one attack of opportunity per round. ;) I would be fine with a -20 or -30 penalty. :dragon: *****