My character was faced with a drow claiming to be a drow matron mother. While she tried to turn my character to the dark side, my arcane trickster hit her with a discreet silenced/stilled greater dispel magic to knock out any defenses and then opened up with a maximized cone of cold and a quickened maximized cone of cold.
She beat me to the punch, launched a preemptive attack, and gave me cause to retreat.
The GM told me that she was tipped off when a number of her ongoing buffs went down due to the dispel magic.
So my question is this: Was my GM right? If you have non-visual ongoing buffs and they are suddenly dispelled, do you necessarily know they are dispelled? I'm feeling rather jipped since I out a lot of resource investment into being able to do that combo.
Yeah you know when suddenly your nine magical senses go away and you aren't as fast as you were a second ago. Same with the lack of nigh invulnerability to stuff fades out and you don't feel so competent swinging that weapon.
Buffs going down is noticeable -- though I do applaud your thinking to do so still and silently -- if she hadn't known exactly where you were you could have probably gotten her good with it.
I have to agree with the consensus of this thread.
If the roles had been reversed, and it had been the drow who cast dispel magic at a PC to remove her buffs, I would inform the player. It would avoid a huge argument.
Especially since the most common reason for a PC losing her buffs would be simply that enough time elapsed. I figure it is the right thing to inform the player that the buffs are down so she can recharge them if desired. Otherwise, players don't really know if their buffs are up or down, if there is a delay between encounters.
What if it was a fly spell that got dispelled, and yo are walking at the time? What if, as was the case with the supposed matron mother, it is a contingency spell?
Neither one of those have noticeable effects until you try to fly or the contingency is triggered.
What if it was a fly spell that got dispelled, and yo are walking at the time? What if, as was the case with the supposed matron mother, it is a contingency spell?
Neither one of those have noticeable effects until you try to fly or the contingency is triggered.
Like I said, if it had happened to a PC, I would inform the player.
I think a DM who did _not_ inform the player if this happened to his PC would find himself in an argument that would have a high probability of derailing the game.
I suppose your game might work differently, but remember, if it works for the PCs, it works for the NPCs. Many GMs have a tendancy to remember clever tricks that players pull off, and then their NPCs start using these tricks.
I even had an evil druid with Silenced Spell once. He didnt' have Still Spell, but I worked around that by giving him a habit of waving his arms about whenever he talked, so there was no warning he was about to cast Poison on the Barbarian except that the PCs were fighting him, and he was moving towards the Barbarian and waving his arms and asking him to "be reasonable, surrender!", and so the Barbarian figured that it wasn't going to be good news.
Well it wasn't useless you still got the jump on her with the first spell and presumably lost initiative with the follow up. if you just started casting a spell you would start out rolling initiative.
On a side note, even stilled and silent spells I'd allow a check to see if she could make out you are trying something, afterall it would still provoke attacks of oppurtunity, so it makes sense some effort is needed to set it off still.. probably a sense motive check with a modifier depending on light and / or concealment conditions.
I do assume someone would notice magic going down, if only for it's potential for abuse on either side of the DM screen.
|
We've always played as if you knew something was active or not active automatically unless the rules said otherwise. We figured that even if there isn't a visual effect there was some other effect that you could sense. Like maybe when you cast Fly on yourself you feel lighter or if you put up a Shield spell (which puts up an invisible shield) you can feel it somehow.
We didn't specify the feeling for every spell, just an overall agreement that you knew somehow the spell was active so you'd notice of suddenly the spell was dispelled.
What if it was a fly spell that got dispelled, and yo are walking at the time? What if, as was the case with the supposed matron mother, it is a contingency spell?
Neither one of those have noticeable effects until you try to fly or the contingency is triggered.
Let me try a slightly different approach. In your games if someone casts Charm Person does the caster immediately know if the spell succeeds? If yes then there is some kind of mystical connection to your own magic that lets you know if it is working. If no, then I can see your point.
In either case I agree with the consensus that from a game mechanics standpoint it's better if the caster knows.
For the record, in our games we use the convention that if it is a dismissible (D) spell then you know if if is working, if not it takes a standard action (same as it would be to dismiss it) to determine if it's working.
|
|
Let me try a slightly different approach. In your games if someone casts Charm Person does the caster immediately know if the spell succeeds? If yes then there is some kind of mystical connection to your own magic that lets you know if it is working. If no, then I can see your point.
That case is actually covered under the rules themselves.
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.
Let me try a slightly different approach. In your games if someone casts Charm Person does the caster immediately know if the spell succeeds? If yes then there is some kind of mystical connection to your own magic that lets you know if it is working. If no, then I can see your point.
That case is actually covered under the rules themselves.
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.
I've house ruled that creatures know at least basically what the spell effect will do if they fail their saving throw.
I instituted this rule the first time the PCs came across a potion of healing water in the middle of the dungeon. They were pretty beat up from their last fight, and didnt' know what the fountain did, and I just found it easier to tell them it healed their wounds than to have them puzzle it out and decide if they want a saving throw or not.
This disallows a trick that is specifically mentioned in the 3.5 rules (lying about what spell you are about to cast), but I've found it makes things simpler for me as DM.
I would go with yeah, you probably know when your spells go away.
BUT...
I would object to the DM not telling you this until after you dispelled the spell, as you are an experienced spell caster. You character would be familiar with how buffs and dispels interact and at the very least you should have gotten a spellcraft check to know you cannot discretely dispel buffs.
A DM undermining a player's plan by withholding information that the player's character would know until after the player is commited to the plan is just one step shy of railroading IMO.
Player: I am going to jump over that 5 foot wide, 20 foot deep chasm.
DM: Ok, go for it.
Player: I take a running start and jump *rolls dice*
DM: Oh yeah, in this game world gravity is doubled and all jump checks are at -20 DC and falling damage is tripled, you fall down a chasm and die....
I would go with yeah, you probably know when your spells go away.
BUT...
I would object to the DM not telling you this until after you dispelled the spell, as you are an experienced spell caster. You character would be familiar with how buffs and dispels interact and at the very least you should have gotten a spellcraft check to know you cannot discretely dispel buffs.
A DM undermining a player's plan by withholding information that the player's character would know until after the player is commited to the plan is just one step shy of railroading IMO.
Player: I am going to jump over that 5 foot wide, 20 foot deep chasm.
DM: Ok, go for it.
Player: I take a running start and jump *rolls dice*
DM: Oh yeah, in this game world gravity is doubled and all jump checks are at -20 DC and falling damage is tripled, you fall down a chasm and die....
True, but that is if the DM knows what the player is going to do.
As a DM, I try to warn players if what they are about to do won't work or be effective or might have a hazardous effect due to the way I interpret the rules and my house rules. For example, I warn players of my Friendly Fire houserule if that is about to come into play. I also have a policy of warning players if their action would provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
But players don't always tell the DM everything about their plans, so it is possible for a player to be surprised by how things work out. Live and learn, I always say. An adventurer's life is a dangerous occupation, and players can not count on the DM to warn them about everything.
I would go with yeah, you probably know when your spells go away.
BUT...
I would object to the DM not telling you this until after you dispelled the spell, as you are an experienced spell caster. You character would be familiar with how buffs and dispels interact and at the very least you should have gotten a spellcraft check to know you cannot discretely dispel buffs.
A DM undermining a player's plan by withholding information that the player's character would know until after the player is commited to the plan is just one step shy of railroading IMO.
Player: I am going to jump over that 5 foot wide, 20 foot deep chasm.
DM: Ok, go for it.
Player: I take a running start and jump *rolls dice*
DM: Oh yeah, in this game world gravity is doubled and all jump checks are at -20 DC and falling damage is tripled, you fall down a chasm and die....True, but that is if the DM knows what the player is going to do.
As a DM, I try to warn players if what they are about to do won't work or be effective or might have a hazardous effect due to the way I interpret the rules and my house rules. For example, I warn players of my Friendly Fire houserule if that is about to come into play. I also have a policy of warning players if their action would provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
But players don't always tell the DM everything about their plans, so it is possible for a player to be surprised by how things work out. Live and learn, I always say. An adventurer's life is a dangerous occupation, and players can not count on the DM to warn them about everything.
Yeah, but when a character is casting a silenced and stilled spell, it is pretty obvious they are trying to be subtle.
Creative Director
|
A PC should know when his spell effects end, for two simple reasons:
1) It lets the player make better-informed decisions about tactics. If a PC gets to know his hit points and his AC and his saving throws, he should be able to know his buffs.
2) It moves another chunk of micromanagement off the GM and onto the player. Asking a GM to keep track of which effects are and aren't working on every player is a good way to stall the game or introduce unnecessary errors and cause unneeded arguments.
I would go with yeah, you probably know when your spells go away.
BUT...
I would object to the DM not telling you this until after you dispelled the spell, as you are an experienced spell caster. You character would be familiar with how buffs and dispels interact and at the very least you should have gotten a spellcraft check to know you cannot discretely dispel buffs.
A DM undermining a player's plan by withholding information that the player's character would know until after the player is commited to the plan is just one step shy of railroading IMO.
Player: I am going to jump over that 5 foot wide, 20 foot deep chasm.
DM: Ok, go for it.
Player: I take a running start and jump *rolls dice*
DM: Oh yeah, in this game world gravity is doubled and all jump checks are at -20 DC and falling damage is tripled, you fall down a chasm and die....True, but that is if the DM knows what the player is going to do.
As a DM, I try to warn players if what they are about to do won't work or be effective or might have a hazardous effect due to the way I interpret the rules and my house rules. For example, I warn players of my Friendly Fire houserule if that is about to come into play. I also have a policy of warning players if their action would provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
But players don't always tell the DM everything about their plans, so it is possible for a player to be surprised by how things work out. Live and learn, I always say. An adventurer's life is a dangerous occupation, and players can not count on the DM to warn them about everything.
A high-level bard with maxed-out Knowledge skills is going to know things about the way magic works or what certain creatures are immune to that the character's player doesn't. In situations when a player chooses to do something that his character would know wouldn't work, I'll tell him, "Your character knows that creature X is immune to spell Y. Do something else this round." Otherwise, you're punishing the player for not having as high an Int as his character.
Even if you want to dismiss every valid argument presented here as to why you know if your magic is dispelled, in your presented context the DM was completely right for that to tip her off. Noble drow, such as the matron you were fighting, have the spell like ability of detect magic always active. So she would have SEEN that her magics had dissipated, and the direction that the anti magic came from.
While I agree that people know when their buffs go down, I would've totally given you a surprise round.
I know they're drow and all, but they aren't readying an action unless someone invisibly and silently dispels all their magic at all times.
"TODAY'S THE DAY, I'M TELLING YOU! ONE OF THESE SLAVES WILL TRY DISPELLING ME, I KNOW IT!"
Let me try a slightly different approach. In your games if someone casts Charm Person does the caster immediately know if the spell succeeds? If yes then there is some kind of mystical connection to your own magic that lets you know if it is working. If no, then I can see your point.What if it was a fly spell that got dispelled, and yo are walking at the time? What if, as was the case with the supposed matron mother, it is a contingency spell?
Neither one of those have noticeable effects until you try to fly or the contingency is triggered.
Yes, the caster would know if his spell succeeded, but only because the rules specifically say so. Knowing whether one of your non-visible spells is dispelled (which is a completely different matter than your example) is another matter since, to my knowledge, the rules don't clarify whether or not you know if your spells have been dispelled.
A PC should know when his spell effects end, for two simple reasons:
1) It lets the player make better-informed decisions about tactics. If a PC gets to know his hit points and his AC and his saving throws, he should be able to know his buffs.
2) It moves another chunk of micromanagement off the GM and onto the player. Asking a GM to keep track of which effects are and aren't working on every player is a good way to stall the game or introduce unnecessary errors and cause unneeded arguments.
But would an NPC know? I can understand your clarification in terms of reducing micromanagement, but is there a passage in the book that supports your statement? Did I overlook it somewhere?
Noble drow, such as the matron you were fighting, have the spell like ability of detect magic always active. So she would have SEEN that her magics had dissipated, and the direction that the anti magic came from.
Doesn't dispel magic take 2 rounds or more to get any more details then the presence or absence of magic? By the time she could have determined the number of sources of magic and which ones just vanished, I would have blasted her two to five times over.
While I agree that people know when their buffs go down, I would've totally given you a surprise round.
I know they're drow and all, but they aren't readying an action unless someone invisibly and silently dispels all their magic at all times.
"TODAY'S THE DAY, I'M TELLING YOU! ONE OF THESE SLAVES WILL TRY DISPELLING ME, I KNOW IT!"
It is absolutely impossible to prepare an action outside of initiative. Otherwise, the entire concept of initiative would become largely moot.
|
While I agree that people know when their buffs go down, I would've totally given you a surprise round.
I know they're drow and all, but they aren't readying an action unless someone invisibly and silently dispels all their magic at all times.
"TODAY'S THE DAY, I'M TELLING YOU! ONE OF THESE SLAVES WILL TRY DISPELLING ME, I KNOW IT!"
Getting that spell off WAS probably the suprise round. He'd have to beat the Matron at initiative to get the rest of the combo off.
I'm guessing the whole turn to the darkside thing was the RP before the storm.
--Vrock the boat
But would an NPC know? I can understand your clarification in terms of reducing micromanagement, but is there a passage in the book that supports your statement? Did I overlook it somewhere?
NPCs should know the same things PCs know about themselves and their spell effects. Why use different rules?
But would an NPC know? I can understand your clarification in terms of reducing micromanagement, but is there a passage in the book that supports your statement? Did I overlook it somewhere?
NPCs should know the same things PCs know about themselves and their spell effects. Why use different rules?
I'm not so concerned about that (in general I agree that PC knowledge = NPC knowledge) as I am the fact that the rules don't seem to say either way on whether you know if a spell is dispelled.