Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

If there is one barrier I am constantly and consistently hitting when it comes to dungeons and dragons and magic it is the idea of magic that works without the target knowing.

The problem is that: There are absolutely no rules surrounding it.

A lot of people use spells like Charm Person and it has both Verbal and Somatic components (as in they have to speak, and they have to do the silly magician dance). It also forced a will save.

There is no reason why a person wouldn't notice a Charm person spell even if they failed the roll.

Are there rules on this? ANY? Because this is actually quite ridiculous that there are no rules.

[Grakelin]

It depends on both the setting AND edition you're using. It's also not uncommon for RPGs to fail to include this sort of information. nWoD is brimming with magic powers that may or may not be detectable.

You seem to have answered the question for yourself, though. There isn't any further need to find a specific rule for this if you've already ascertained that it makes no sense for the target not to know a spell is being cast. I have a feeling this thread is a response to some argument you're having though, so you should probably defer to your DM in this case. In many cases, they may not even be using components for spells at all.

[Neonivek]

No, for once this isn't an argument that I am settling here, it is just that it pops up a lot and many players have treated certain spells as stealth spells. Heck even myself.

Yet there are no rules on it in 3.5 or Pathfinder (and 4.0 has VERY few spells for out of combat).

Heck there are no rules on if a spell is visible.

[LordSlowpoke]

You're supposed to wing it~

[Neonivek]

You're supposed to wing it~

My general rule is that a spell isn't a "stealth spell" unless it lacks both a Verbal and Somatic Component.

[Grakelin]

(I would argue that 4.0 has almost too many out of combat spells, considering how much time you spend in combat, and how expensive they are compared to their benefit in the RAW)

I think you actually need a feat for certain things to be "stealthy". I remember seeing those feats swimming around for uses such as casting somatic spells while grappled. I think one or more of the classes can "prime" the spell and thus use them without their gestures, too. Otherwise, it's common sense that a spell that requires you to speak and make a gesture is noticable to anybody looking or listening to you. It isn't explicitly explained for the same reason they never explicitly explain that stabbing the monsters makes them aggro you.

EDIT: Also, you're not really supposed to just "wing it" in a tabletop RPG. That's what Free Form is for. You only really wing it during the moment when you don't know what the rule is, and then you try to actually figure out what's balanced later.

[LordSlowpoke]

So hey, there you go. I'd throw in a few other things myself, but they're common sense (and me being a horrible- I mean, best GM). Hope it works well for you.

[Max White]

House rules we normally play by:
1. Did the spell effect fail?
If so the target is aware that a spell was cast on them. This doesn't mean they know who tried to cast it or their location.
2. Does the target have a reasonable way to know if they have been affected by a spell?
Some spells have somewhat obvious effects, others do not and you might not even know you can been affected. If it is clear the target can figure out they are under the effect of a spell, the target is aware that a spell was cast on them. This doesn't mean they know who tried to cast it or their location.

3. Can the target see, hear or otherwise sense the caster while they were casting. If so the target knows a spell was cast, but they may not know they were the target.

4. After going over rules 1 to 3, does the target know that a spell was cast on themselves, and the caster used a spell?
If so it is reasonable to assume they were targeted with the spell and will act accordingly.

These rules actually give the DM a lot of flexibility, especially in the way of making conflict. When an NPC sees your wizard chanting and waving his hands about, and something happens to the NPC, they are going to most likely blame the wizard, even if something else was casting a spell on the NPC.
Special consideration has to be taken where an NPC would be able to identify what sort of spell the player is casting though.

[LordBucket]

a person wouldn't notice a Charm person spell even if they failed the roll.

I don't have a sourcebook on hand, but I remember there being a specific clause in previous editions for failed charm attempts to have a chance to anger opponents for the very reasons you describe.

In any case, like others are pointing out, whether or not there is, there's nothing stopping you from implementing one.