Mind effecting spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Mind effecting spells [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
thejibboo
03-05-08, 02:25 AM When someone has been the subject of a mind effecting/controlling spell like charm or dominate person, what do they feel once the spell has worn off? Do they remember their actions but are unable to explain why they did them, or is it part of the effect of the spell to leave them under the impression that they were acting of their own volition? It just seems that the utility of the spells is greatly reduced if the jig is immediately up once the duration ends (specifically I've got a concept for a group of bad guys who make frequent use of charm spells to gain power in a kingdom's government, but I want to make it work the same way for my players when they cast it). If I do rule that these spells also include this minor memory altering quality, should I allow a second will save after the fact, or maybe an intelligence check, to let the subject possibly realize that he's been manipulated?
rimble
03-05-08, 11:34 AM Well, I guess first, keep in mind such large scale shenanigans probably wouldn't go on for long, someone is going to make a decent Sense Motive roll eventually:

Sense Enchantment

You can tell that someone’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (by definition, a mind-affecting effect), even if that person isn’t aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target’s activities.

Now, if you're Dominated and not being actively commanded, I don't think it's noticeable through your behavior, but possibly by other means, like Detect Magic. Once you've received a command and are acting on it, it's painfully obvious that something is amiss. Charm Person is much more subtle though.

I definitely think they will remember their actions. Dominate can really make you do things you don't want to do, but you might not immediately suspect magic. Maybe you were drugged, or maybe you were just having a really weird day. Sort of the same with Charm Person. "Why did I agree with the Senator? I hate that jerk, what was I thinking?!"

I think Spellcraft checks after the fact would be appropriate. And again, a simple Detect Magic would reveal all these Enchantments. That's why we keep Court Wizards around.
SearcherOmega
03-05-08, 12:38 PM Mind effecting spells, eh?

tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects

1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.

Mmm... I guess the Awaken spell and some of the high-level Animate Dead spells might count... ;)

Oh. You're looking for information about spells that affect minds, not effect them...

I would say that whether or not the person figures out they've been mentally toyed with depends on the severity of their actions. Charming a guard to enter the castle will probably have them with the impression afterwards that they met someone kinda nice, but they can't remember what was so nice about them, but they'll probably just shrug it off as a peculiarity of their memory.

Dominate Person, on the other hand, I've always seen as being much more forceful - you're ripping control of one's body from them. I pretty much assume that once that spell wears off, if you haven't commanded your victim to come to a discreet location where you can tie them up and force another Dominate Person against them, the gig's up. Charm Person is subtler, but is much more limited in what it can do, but Dominate Person is much more dramatic, and allows you to accomplish a lot more, at the cost of losing its subtlety.

May vary for your campaign, of course. You may consider also giving these guys excellent Bluff and Diplomacy scores, so that they can use more mundane methods of manipulation side-by-side with their magical manipulation.
Wih
03-05-08, 10:54 PM Unless specified, you retain all knowledge of everything you've done, but you are not immediately aware of any foul play (except if the spell specifies, such as Dominate Person in which you are telepathically given orders that you are compelled to follow). If you think "Wait, why did I do that?", or "I did something funny after the pretty lady waved her hands and spoke in a weird langauge", you might connect the dots though.
You allies can use Sense Motive while you're under the effect as rimble pointed out, but it's only while you're under the effect that it can be used, so you don't get a retroactive chance to use it after the effect has worn off.
Spellcraft isn't much use to you either, as that requires it to be in place and effect, or know that you made a saving throw, of which if you failed your save you will not have a chance to do either (unless you're metagaming). However I can see a DC 20+Spell Level check with a modifier (maybe +10 or so, depending on how obvious the effect was) being appropriate, but not RAW.
Tedronai
03-05-08, 11:23 PM Unless specified, you retain all knowledge of everything you've done, but you are not immediately aware of any foul play (except if the spell specifies, such as Dominate Person in which you are telepathically given orders that you are compelled to follow). If you think "Wait, why did I do that?", or "I did something funny after the pretty lady waved her hands and spoke in a weird langauge", you might connect the dots though.
You allies can use Sense Motive while you're under the effect as rimble pointed out, but it's only while you're under the effect that it can be used, so you don't get a retroactive chance to use it after the effect has worn off.
Spellcraft isn't much use to you either, as that requires it to be in place and effect, or know that you made a saving throw, of which if you failed your save you will not have a chance to do either (unless you're metagaming). However I can see a DC 20+Spell Level check with a modifier (maybe +10 or so, depending on how obvious the effect was) being appropriate, but not RAW.

Remember, though, that both Sense Motive and Spellcraft, being reactive skills, HAPPEN, whether or not the PLAYERS ask for the check. Anything else is the DM cheating, thus forcing the players to metagame (and ending with the inevitable 'I Sense Motive EVERYTHING' solution if they are prevented from doing so). If there is a roll to be made, it is the DM's responsibility to either tell the players to roll the check, or to make the check secretly on behalf of the players and simply tell them any relevant results.

My DM doesn't get to complain that I'm metagaming if I'm only doing it to compensate for his cheating.
thejibboo
03-06-08, 12:40 AM Thanks for the responses. I don't intend to have the bad guys keeping people under continuous charm spells, just using them to aid diplomacy in certain cases. I like the suggestion that the likelihood of the subject realizing what's happened depends more on how carefully the caster has used the spell and worded the instructions. I forgot about suggestion when I was posting this, maybe that's even a better way to go.

the gig's up.
gig –noun
1. a light, two-wheeled one-horse carriage.
2. Nautical.
a. a light boat rowed with four, six, or eight long oars.
b. a boat reserved for the use of the captain of a ship.
3. something that whirls.
4. Also called gig mill. a roller containing teasels, used for raising nap on a fabric.

Surely you meant "the jig's up." See I can do it too. :P
That being said, I freely admit that mine was a much worse goof. I just had to get in my petty dig. I still have look effect/affect up when I use them in essays, but that will show me to let my guard down. On the bright side I probably won't flub them again:D
Wih
03-06-08, 11:17 PM Remember, though, that both Sense Motive and Spellcraft, being reactive skills, HAPPEN, whether or not the PLAYERS ask for the check. Anything else is the DM cheating, thus forcing the players to metagame (and ending with the inevitable 'I Sense Motive EVERYTHING' solution if they are prevented from doing so). If there is a roll to be made, it is the DM's responsibility to either tell the players to roll the check, or to make the check secretly on behalf of the players and simply tell them any relevant results.

My DM doesn't get to complain that I'm metagaming if I'm only doing it to compensate for his cheating.

I completely agree, with one caveat - there's a difference between an active skill and a passive skill. If they're actively rolling it, cool. However, if they're passively rolling it, not everything they've got is in it - if you look under Spot and Listen, there's a -5 penalty if the character is distracted. I personally would apply this if it was a passive check, as it's not something they're concentrating on.
But yes, I do know where you're coming from - not allowing/giving reflexive and reactive rolls is begging for paranoid players, and is not a good thing.
Tedronai
03-07-08, 02:00 AM I completely agree, with one caveat - there's a difference between an active skill and a passive skill. If they're actively rolling it, cool. However, if they're passively rolling it, not everything they've got is in it - if you look under Spot and Listen, there's a -5 penalty if the character is distracted. I personally would apply this if it was a passive check, as it's not something they're concentrating on.
But yes, I do know where you're coming from - not allowing/giving reflexive and reactive rolls is begging for paranoid players, and is not a good thing.

If they actually are legitimately 'distracted' (that status not being adequately defined anywhere as far as I'm aware), then sure, I'd say that's fair. If you're applying that to ANY passive roll, though, then I'd suggest you'll probably end up with the same situation. Most of those checks are free actions or non-actions anyway, that simply HAPPEN whenever a triggering condition arises. Bogus penalties aren't much better than being denied rolls entirely. A bit better, but not much.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thejibboo 03-05-08, 02:25 AM	When someone has been the subject of a mind effecting/controlling spell like charm or dominate person, what do they feel once the spell has worn off? Do they remember their actions but are unable to explain why they did them, or is it part of the effect of the spell to leave them under the impression that they were acting of their own volition? It just seems that the utility of the spells is greatly reduced if the jig is immediately up once the duration ends (specifically I've got a concept for a group of bad guys who make frequent use of charm spells to gain power in a kingdom's government, but I want to make it work the same way for my players when they cast it). If I do rule that these spells also include this minor memory altering quality, should I allow a second will save after the fact, or maybe an intelligence check, to let the subject possibly realize that he's been manipulated?
rimble 03-05-08, 11:34 AM	Well, I guess first, keep in mind such large scale shenanigans probably wouldn't go on for long, someone is going to make a decent Sense Motive roll eventually: Sense Enchantment You can tell that someone’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (by definition, a mind-affecting effect), even if that person isn’t aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target’s activities. Now, if you're Dominated and not being actively commanded, I don't think it's noticeable through your behavior, but possibly by other means, like Detect Magic. Once you've received a command and are acting on it, it's painfully obvious that something is amiss. Charm Person is much more subtle though. I definitely think they will remember their actions. Dominate can really make you do things you don't want to do, but you might not immediately suspect magic. Maybe you were drugged, or maybe you were just having a really weird day. Sort of the same with Charm Person. "Why did I agree with the Senator? I hate that jerk, what was I thinking?!" I think Spellcraft checks after the fact would be appropriate. And again, a simple Detect Magic would reveal all these Enchantments. That's why we keep Court Wizards around.
SearcherOmega 03-05-08, 12:38 PM	Mind effecting spells, eh? tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects 1. To bring into existence. 2. To produce as a result. Mmm... I guess the Awaken spell and some of the high-level Animate Dead spells might count... ;) Oh. You're looking for information about spells that affect minds, not effect them... I would say that whether or not the person figures out they've been mentally toyed with depends on the severity of their actions. Charming a guard to enter the castle will probably have them with the impression afterwards that they met someone kinda nice, but they can't remember what was so nice about them, but they'll probably just shrug it off as a peculiarity of their memory. Dominate Person, on the other hand, I've always seen as being much more forceful - you're ripping control of one's body from them. I pretty much assume that once that spell wears off, if you haven't commanded your victim to come to a discreet location where you can tie them up and force another Dominate Person against them, the gig's up. Charm Person is subtler, but is much more limited in what it can do, but Dominate Person is much more dramatic, and allows you to accomplish a lot more, at the cost of losing its subtlety. May vary for your campaign, of course. You may consider also giving these guys excellent Bluff and Diplomacy scores, so that they can use more mundane methods of manipulation side-by-side with their magical manipulation.
Wih 03-05-08, 10:54 PM	Unless specified, you retain all knowledge of everything you've done, but you are not immediately aware of any foul play (except if the spell specifies, such as Dominate Person in which you are telepathically given orders that you are compelled to follow). If you think "Wait, why did I do that?", or "I did something funny after the pretty lady waved her hands and spoke in a weird langauge", you might connect the dots though. You allies can use Sense Motive while you're under the effect as rimble pointed out, but it's only while you're under the effect that it can be used, so you don't get a retroactive chance to use it after the effect has worn off. Spellcraft isn't much use to you either, as that requires it to be in place and effect, or know that you made a saving throw, of which if you failed your save you will not have a chance to do either (unless you're metagaming). However I can see a DC 20+Spell Level check with a modifier (maybe +10 or so, depending on how obvious the effect was) being appropriate, but not RAW.
Tedronai 03-05-08, 11:23 PM	Unless specified, you retain all knowledge of everything you've done, but you are not immediately aware of any foul play (except if the spell specifies, such as Dominate Person in which you are telepathically given orders that you are compelled to follow). If you think "Wait, why did I do that?", or "I did something funny after the pretty lady waved her hands and spoke in a weird langauge", you might connect the dots though. You allies can use Sense Motive while you're under the effect as rimble pointed out, but it's only while you're under the effect that it can be used, so you don't get a retroactive chance to use it after the effect has worn off. Spellcraft isn't much use to you either, as that requires it to be in place and effect, or know that you made a saving throw, of which if you failed your save you will not have a chance to do either (unless you're metagaming). However I can see a DC 20+Spell Level check with a modifier (maybe +10 or so, depending on how obvious the effect was) being appropriate, but not RAW. Remember, though, that both Sense Motive and Spellcraft, being reactive skills, HAPPEN, whether or not the PLAYERS ask for the check. Anything else is the DM cheating, thus forcing the players to metagame (and ending with the inevitable 'I Sense Motive EVERYTHING' solution if they are prevented from doing so). If there is a roll to be made, it is the DM's responsibility to either tell the players to roll the check, or to make the check secretly on behalf of the players and simply tell them any relevant results. My DM doesn't get to complain that I'm metagaming if I'm only doing it to compensate for his cheating.
thejibboo 03-06-08, 12:40 AM	Thanks for the responses. I don't intend to have the bad guys keeping people under continuous charm spells, just using them to aid diplomacy in certain cases. I like the suggestion that the likelihood of the subject realizing what's happened depends more on how carefully the caster has used the spell and worded the instructions. I forgot about suggestion when I was posting this, maybe that's even a better way to go. the gig's up. gig –noun 1. a light, two-wheeled one-horse carriage. 2. Nautical. a. a light boat rowed with four, six, or eight long oars. b. a boat reserved for the use of the captain of a ship. 3. something that whirls. 4. Also called gig mill. a roller containing teasels, used for raising nap on a fabric. Surely you meant "the jig's up." See I can do it too. :P That being said, I freely admit that mine was a much worse goof. I just had to get in my petty dig. I still have look effect/affect up when I use them in essays, but that will show me to let my guard down. On the bright side I probably won't flub them again:D
Wih 03-06-08, 11:17 PM	Remember, though, that both Sense Motive and Spellcraft, being reactive skills, HAPPEN, whether or not the PLAYERS ask for the check. Anything else is the DM cheating, thus forcing the players to metagame (and ending with the inevitable 'I Sense Motive EVERYTHING' solution if they are prevented from doing so). If there is a roll to be made, it is the DM's responsibility to either tell the players to roll the check, or to make the check secretly on behalf of the players and simply tell them any relevant results. My DM doesn't get to complain that I'm metagaming if I'm only doing it to compensate for his cheating. I completely agree, with one caveat - there's a difference between an active skill and a passive skill. If they're actively rolling it, cool. However, if they're passively rolling it, not everything they've got is in it - if you look under Spot and Listen, there's a -5 penalty if the character is distracted. I personally would apply this if it was a passive check, as it's not something they're concentrating on. But yes, I do know where you're coming from - not allowing/giving reflexive and reactive rolls is begging for paranoid players, and is not a good thing.
Tedronai 03-07-08, 02:00 AM	I completely agree, with one caveat - there's a difference between an active skill and a passive skill. If they're actively rolling it, cool. However, if they're passively rolling it, not everything they've got is in it - if you look under Spot and Listen, there's a -5 penalty if the character is distracted. I personally would apply this if it was a passive check, as it's not something they're concentrating on. But yes, I do know where you're coming from - not allowing/giving reflexive and reactive rolls is begging for paranoid players, and is not a good thing. If they actually are legitimately 'distracted' (that status not being adequately defined anywhere as far as I'm aware), then sure, I'd say that's fair. If you're applying that to ANY passive roll, though, then I'd suggest you'll probably end up with the same situation. Most of those checks are free actions or non-actions anyway, that simply HAPPEN whenever a triggering condition arises. Bogus penalties aren't much better than being denied rolls entirely. A bit better, but not much.