How can I pretend to be enchanted?

Let's say an evil wizard cast Charm or Dominate on me. I successfully resisted the spell's effect but wish to pretend to be enchanted, so that when she least expects it, I can give her a hard punch in the face. How can I do that? Normally the caster would know whether her spell was resisted or not, right? Then how can I conceal the fact that I resisted her spell? Is there a suitable feat that lets me do that?

there's some bracer's made just for that.

How about a bluff check?

I believe if it's a targered spell the caster knows if you save.

If it targets more than one creature the caster wouldn't know and a bluff check vs the caster' sense motive should be fine. It's worth noting you would have to succeed at a spellcraft check to know what was cast on you.

There will be specific feats/etc that overrule this (such as the bracers mentioned above).

There is the Follow Along Rogue talent and the Enchentment Foil spell. The Rogue talent even let's you automatically know vs what the spell would had done on a fail.

It seems that there is no such a feat that would do the trick and I have to cast Enchantment Foil or become a rogue or buy a seducer's bane. Thank you for your help, everyone.

An absurdly high bluff check should fool a caster with a Charm spell. Dominate has that telepathic component to it, there is no way you'd be able to bluff your way around that.

And by absurd bluff check, I'm thinking DC 30 for fooling a caster into believing you are under the effect of their charm.

An absurdly high bluff check should fool a caster with a Charm spell. Dominate has that telepathic component to it, there is no way you'd be able to bluff your way around that.

And by absurd bluff check, I'm thinking DC 30 for fooling a caster into believing you are under the effect of their charm.

According to the rules as they have been laid out, no. No Bluff check, absurdly high or not, will fool a spellcaster into thinking their spell succeeded where it did not.

It's a cool idea, though. Great potential for a scene or story, there. Just so long as it doesn't come up every time.

For completeness, heres the actual rule: "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." CRB pg. 216f

Nevertheless, you might be able to bluff them into thinking that you were somehow affected despite the successful saving throw, though that'd probably fall under the category of "far-fetched" (-10) or "impossible" (-20) thanks to the above rule, so good luck with that. People are bluffed into disbelieving things they know to be true all the time. Don't demand a roll from your GM, though; some things just can't be bluffed, and the GM gets to decide what those things are.

For completeness, heres the actual rule: "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." CRB pg. 216f

So, if an evil wizard cast Charm Monster, Dominate Monster or Suggestion on me, I cannot pretend to be enchanted, but if she cast Mass Charm Monster or Mass Suggestion on me, I can pretend to be enchanted?

Derklord wrote:

For completeness, heres the actual rule: "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." CRB pg. 216f

So, if an evil wizard cast Charm Monster, Dominate Monster or Suggestion on me, I cannot pretend to be enchanted, but if she cast Mass Charm Monster or Mass Suggestion on me, I can pretend to be enchanted?

Correct.

A successful spellcraft check might be in order too. You'd have to know what you're being hit with before you can Bluff like you were hit with it.

A successful spellcraft check might be in order too. You'd have to know what you're being hit with before you can Bluff like you were hit with it.

Also correct.

Should I really need to make a spellcraft check? In The Order of the Stick, a famous webcomic, mages loudly shouts the name of the spell whenever they cast a spell. Maybe the name of a spell is the verbal component? So maybe I can find out which spell hit me because the enemy spellcaster would say "Fireball!" or "Charm Person!"?

People speaking the names of the spells is for reader's convenience, to make it clear to the reader what spell is being cast. The actual verbal components of spells aren't described anywhere.

Order of the Stick is funny, but in no way relevant to the rules, so unless you have a lenient GM that decides to throw spell identification out, no.

People speaking the names of the spells is for reader's convenience, to make it clear to the reader what spell is being cast. The actual verbal components of spells aren't described anywhere.

Order of the Stick is funny, but in no way relevant to the rules, so unless you have a lenient GM that decides to throw spell identification out, no.

Also correct.

... but seriously - yes you need to make a spellcraft check to know what spell is being cast.

Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question.

...
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
...
You cannot retry checks made to identify a spell.
...
Task: Identify a spell as it is being cast
DC: 15 + spell level

Aenigma wrote:

Derklord wrote:

For completeness, heres the actual rule: "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." CRB pg. 216f

So, if an evil wizard cast Charm Monster, Dominate Monster or Suggestion on me, I cannot pretend to be enchanted, but if she cast Mass Charm Monster or Mass Suggestion on me, I can pretend to be enchanted?

Correct.

No, not correct. Those spells are not an AoEs but targeted spells. There might be multiple targets spread over an area but it is still a targeted spell. They are not AoE spells.

PS: Offhand and with a quick search of just the CRB I did not find any examples of non-targeted AoE enchantments. They tend to have the same 1 target/level no more than "N" distance apart language.

PS2: Found one. Mind Fog is an 'effect' enchantment (compulsion)[mind-affecting] spell.

PS3: Wondering if one could pair up Contingency with something that might fool the other caster ...

Even if you have seducers bane or the like I would say you have to make a bluff check as you might still slip up and reveal you're not really charmed. That said, I really like the concept in general. Especially for a "charmed" assassin who pretends to be guarding the person while secretly preparing a death attack on them.

Aenigma wrote:

Derklord wrote:

For completeness, heres the actual rule: "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." CRB pg. 216f

So, if an evil wizard cast Charm Monster, Dominate Monster or Suggestion on me, I cannot pretend to be enchanted, but if she cast Mass Charm Monster or Mass Suggestion on me, I can pretend to be enchanted?

Correct.

Incorrect. Both of those spells are targeted, it is just that they have multiple targets.

I have a relevant question. If an evil wizard cast a divination or enchantment spell(Charm, Dominate, Detect Magic, Detect Thought, Seek Thought, Suggestion, Scrying, Discern Location, et cetera) on me, would I realize some malevolent being tried to enter my mind even without the spellcraft check? For example, let's say while I and an evil wizard are having a conversation, she cast silent, still Charm or Dominate or other similar spell on me. Whether the spell succeeded or failed, would I realize she somehow cast a mental spell on me? If I wouldn't, that means even after casting a spell on me, she can still go undetected.

If there is a saving throw you will feel a "hostile" force or a tingle i.e. know something tried to affect you but wouldn't know what that effect was if you succeed with the saving throw.

Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. 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.

Then there's all the (not my favorite rules/FAQ) stuff dealing with the fact that even a Silent, Stilled, Eschewed spell would have manifestations which indicate to anyone with half a brain that someone is casting spells in the area.

Note that if the spell fails for another reason, that is not the same as you succeeding on the saving throw. That means if you are an invalid target (charm person when you aren't humanoid) the spell will have no effect and, by the rules wording, the caster does not detect that you saved. That's probably a rare occurrence.

A more likely one would be where you have a protection from evil effect which makes you immune to new possessions and mental control. In that case, if you passed your Spellcraft (or made a really good guess), you could pull off feigning it and the fact that the GM can legitimately tell the caster "You didn't sense that they succeeded on their save," (so to speak, it's probably an NPC, but still) will greatly increase the chance of them not realizing what happened.

What? Even a silent still eschewed spell would not go unnoticed? Where in the Core Rulebook can I find the relevant explanation? And is it still true in Second Edition as well?

What? Even a silent still eschewed spell would not go unnoticed? Where in the Core Rulebook can I find the relevant explanation? And is it still true in Second Edition as well?

FAQ

Aenigma wrote:

What? Even a silent still eschewed spell would not go unnoticed? Where in the Core Rulebook can I find the relevant explanation? And is it still true in Second Edition as well?

FAQ

Plus its kind of implicit with spellcraft rules in general which lets you try to ID any spell you see being cast, no concerns given about how it is being cast.

Plus it means you can actually notice SLAs being cast since those are by default still, silent, and eschewed.

My problem is as written manifestations are present but left totally open to interpretation as to what they are.

Rules weren't needed until the advent of metamagic you just assumed stuff happened that made the usage 'obvious' somehow. Then 3.0 came along and many things became heavily codified and metamagic got introduced including eschew, still and silent. But nothing addressed how that changed how one spotted/perceived spells be cast/used particularly if all the components were eliminated leaving only the nebulous idea of manifestations to be dealt with.

And the rules/faq on manifestations as such don't really address this. Just reinforce the idea you can't cast without giving it away to avoid issue with PCs running amok against NPCs...which ought to the gms problem anyway to deal with

Feature, not bug. Manifestations are intentionally unspecified for the same reason that your character's hair color isn't specified.

Feature, not bug. Manifestations are intentionally unspecified for the same reason that your character's hair color isn't specified.

Yeah I get that. My point was more of a then why even "introduce" them? They've been there all along. All the FAQ really does is give the feature a name. The DM adding the 'color/flavor' of smelling brimstone when a demon is summoned has been there for how long? Why the need to give it a name and create a FAQ which does nothing but essentially give it a name and point out "don't let the PCs run rampant over your NPCs with Charm Person". They could have just said that. Never mind that a Stilled and Silent Charm Person (as an example) intuitively should be harder to notice than one that isn't and then provide no guidance on the why, how, etc., for a system that has become highly rules driven (even if they are guidelines). It pulls that sort of question to the forefront with no guidelines included.

blahpers wrote:

Feature, not bug. Manifestations are intentionally unspecified for the same reason that your character's hair color isn't specified.

Yeah I get that. My point was more of a then why even "introduce" them?

To introduce a feat tax to cast sneakily, IIRC.

blahpers wrote:

Feature, not bug. Manifestations are intentionally unspecified for the same reason that your character's hair color isn't specified.

Yeah I get that. My point was more of a then why even "introduce" them? They've been there all along. All the FAQ really does is give the feature a name. The DM adding the 'color/flavor' of smelling brimstone when a demon is summoned has been there for how long? Why the need to give it a name and create a FAQ which does nothing but essentially give it a name and point out "don't let the PCs run rampant over your NPCs with Charm Person". They could have just said that. Never mind that a Stilled and Silent Charm Person (as an example) intuitively should be harder to notice than one that isn't and then provide no guidance on the why, how, etc., for a system that has become highly rules driven (even if they are guidelines). It pulls that sort of question to the forefront with no guidelines included.

I'm having trouble understanding your specific objection, but then the whole manifestation thing has been thoroughly litigated already. For what it's worth, I ignore the blatant rule change manifestation FAQ completely because I find it to be worse for the game and because I don't really want to have to redesign a number of published encounters in Adventure Paths because even the design team themselves didn't understand their own game.

No worries. I think basically neither of us care for the ruling. I know I basically ignore it beyond knowing the FAQ exists. For me it makes subterfuge a non-alternative that they then needed to fix by adding more rules i.e. Coidzor's feat tax etc.. but far as I know failed to address things like why a Still Silent Charm Person is just as obvious (without DM intervention) as a Charm Person.