Reconciling spell effects with the rules

[Ravingdork]

How does one reconcile spell effects within the rules? In some areas, it doesn't seem possible.

How does one walk about discreetly with detect thoughts active, or while wearing a simple pair of eyes of charming without drawing in a lot of unwanted attention? After all, the "hostile ping on a save" rule totally destroys the possibility of being able to use this spell or that item as they were intended to be used. What's more, how come GMs' NPCs and monsters often get away with devious little tricks like that, but player characters absolutely can't? It's any wonder the save-ping hasn't seen to the extinction of doppelgangers everywhere.

How do you rationalize charming someone when they KNOW that they are subject to a charm spell due to having identified your casting with their Spellcraft skill?

How does mislead mislead anyone with ranks Spellcraft?

How does an illusionist ever trick anybody in an open combat situation?

How do tactile illusions (such as veil or mirage arcana) even function when illusions cannot support weight? What happens if my mirage arcana spell creates a tower, and people try walking up the steps to higher floors? How does a huge glabrezu disguised as a medium humanoid with its veil spell-like ability even enter a human dwelling without completely destroying the medium door frame, or sit in a chair sized for man without crushing it?

Why do Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials altogether (a heavy if sensible investment), still not seem to get around spell identification?

What is the point in making offerings to creatures called via planar binding, when penalizing their saves/charisma checks with impunity is almost always far easier, more effective, and less risky?

There are numerous examples of where the apparent INTENT does not match the reality of the RULES. Please discuss possible solutions and feel free to add your own example failings.

[Jeraa]

Ravingdork wrote:

How does one walk about discreetly with detect thoughts active, or while wearing a simple pair of eyes of charming without drawing in a lot of unwanted attention? After all, the "hostile ping on a save" rule totally destroys the possibility of being able to use this spell or that item as they were intended to be used. What's more, how come GMs' NPCs and monsters often get away with devious little tricks like that, but player characters absolutely can't? It's any wonder the save-ping hasn't seen to the extinction of doppelgangers everywhere.

A "hostile ping" could just be something like the hair on the back of your neck standing up, or just a feeling of dread. Maybe you get goosebumps, or its just a cold chill. There is nothing to say that it was caused by spell, just that it happened.

Quote:

How do you rationalize charming someone when they KNOW that they are subject to a charm spell due to having identified your casting with their Spellcraft skill?

Its magic. The target may know that a Charm Person was cast on them, but they don't care. The magic won't let them. As far as they are concerned, they would of been friends with the caster even without the spell. They are magically compelled to do so.

Quote:

How does mislead mislead anyone with ranks Spellcraft?

Even if they know that the image is an illusion, you are still invisible. Just because you know someone is invisibile doesn't stop them from being invisible.

Quote:

How does an illusionist ever trick anybody in an open combat situation?

Most people don't have Spellcraft, so don't know if you just made an illusion, or conjured something into being. Was that an illusion spell or a Summon Monster? Is that dragon real? Did he really create a wall of fire, of just an illusion of one? Until they interact with it, they won't know.

Quote:

Why do Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials altogether (a heavy if sensible investment), still not seem to get around spell identification?

Note that in 3.5, those feats would prevent you from determining what spell was being cast, as you had to see the spells somatic components, or hear the spells verbal components. That notation was removed in Pathfinder. You just have to see the spell as it is being cast. That implies spells have some sort of visual effects.

[Liam Warner]

Hmmm well in order of what I'd do . . .

Q1) How does one walk about discreetly with detect thoughts active, or while wearing a simple pair of eyes of charming without drawing in a lot of unwanted attention? After all, the "hostile ping on a save" rule totally destroys the possibility of being able to use this spell or that item as they were intended to be used. What's more, how come GMs' NPCs and monsters often get away with devious little tricks like that, but player characters absolutely can't? It's any wonder the save-ping hasn't seen to the extinction of doppelgangers everywhere.

A1)Like the above poster I treat it as a somethings not right sensation and not a "Warning, Warning, Mind Reading detected, triangulating, 20 degree's right and up one floor, male dark haired, dark eyed, caucasian, engaging counter measures" style of alert. Your average run of the mill commoner probably wouldn't feel anything more than a chill in the air, an experienced soldier or adventurer might have a sense that someone's watching them. However unless they have some form of magical/psionic protection that's about it even at higher levels.

Q2) How do you rationalize charming someone when they KNOW that they are subject to a charm spell due to having identified your casting with their Spellcraft skill?

A2) Again like the above poster the fact that you may know you've been charmed doesn't remove the effect. If some powerful mage makes you fall for him as part of his one night stand even if you know he did it too you your still in love with him you just might be angry at him as well.

Q3) How does mislead mislead anyone with ranks Spellcraft?

A3) Well again as the above poster said your still invisible, also if I go blah, blah, blah, mislead you don't know if I cast the spell. Sure you can identify the geastures/words but maybe I merely imitated the spell and the girl bolting for the door is the real me instead of an illusion.

Q4)How does an illusionist ever trick anybody in an open combat situation?

A4) More easily than outside of one. In open combat things are confusing, shifting rapidly from moment to moment and you've got a flaming skeleton in leather armour bearing down on you. Do you (a) take the time to try and figure out if that chasm opening towards you from the mage is real or do you (b) dive out of its way on a better safe than sorry approach so you can take out the skeleton without worry about falling into a pit.

Q5)How do tactile illusions (such as veil or mirage arcana) even function when illusions cannot support weight? What happens if my mirage arcana spell creates a tower, and people try walking up the steps to higher floors? How does a huge glabrezu disguised as a medium humanoid with its veil spell-like ability even enter a human dwelling without completely destroying the medium door frame, or sit in a chair sized for man without crushing it?

A5) Sort of a two parter hear. In these more powerful spells the term illusion is a bit of a misnomer as it doesn't just affect the visual senses but instead it affects all of them. If you touch the wall you'll feel the sensation of the cold hard stone but since it isn't in fact real you could still shove your hand through it (a very odd and unpleasant sensation). So the person trying to walk up a set of steps is going to feel that they are completely solid until they fall through them. On the subject of veil I'm really not sure how to explain it, to me it seems more transmuation than illusion or at least a mixture of the two.

I suppose you could take the approach that the greater illusions are actually able to rewrite reality on a limited scale but are subject to disruption by someone refusing to accept the new reality. So a man transformed via veil into a pregnant woman would look, smell, feel and even react physically just like a woman would but if someone refuses to believe it shatters the illusion and reality snaps back to its true form.

Q6) Why do Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials altogether (a heavy if sensible investment), still not seem to get around spell identification?

A6) Simplified design in my game each of them adds a +10 to the spell (eschew materials doesn't do anything for this purposes) since the actual spell appearance varies from caster to caster in my games both of them will make it impossible to identify the spell until you can obvserve the effects.

Q7) What is the point in making offerings to creatures called via planar binding, when penalizing their saves/charisma checks with impunity is almost always far easier, more effective, and less risky?

Because once the penalties wear off they'll remember and the more punitive will gather up their friends and come to the prime material to hunt you down and kill you. Whereas if you go with "Oh mighty being X I seek a boon from your great power. In return I humbly offer these piles of treasure/rare artifact/of service/pick your desire in the hopes it might please thee." and then after it goes away everyone happy. I've always treated it as a sort of east/west approach. The eastern mages enter these situations in a mind to bargain where they'll offer the being an equivilent item or service in exchange. Western mages on the other hand take the view that they are the pincacle of creation and these non human creatures should be grateful for the chance to serve.

[ryric]

Ravingdork wrote:

How does an illusionist ever trick anybody in an open combat situation?

With actual cleverness. Here is a sample scenario: Illusionist has a friend (we'll call it a fighter). Fighter has invisibility cast upon them. Illusionist casts major image which the PC's spellcasters identifies and tells everyone. At the end of the casting, the fighter "appears from nowhere." PCs assume fighter is an illusion, hilarity ensues. Major image is used to slightly tint a brick in the wall, if the GM rules that some illusion effect must actually be created.

Illusionary walls still block line of sight until disbelieved.

However, I agree that there should be a mechanic for disguising spellcasting so as to make using some of these "tricksy" effects easier.

[cranewings]

I think that the charming effect of a lot of classic sorcerers are best described as self buffs. Back in my 2e days, we considered 25 a godly stat, so anything with a 25 got a free pass on a lot of actions.

If a sorcerer with an 18 charisma, wearing a hat of charisma, casts a self charisma buff, she will "enchant" anyone she talks to. When a human beings charisma surpasses human limits, humans sit up and take notice.

As far as direct enchantments and illusions, to me a lot of those are just combat powers. After a pc in a recent game was unable to kill the bbeg because she charmed him, he went back to the group and said, "she asked me not to tell you this but I didn't kill her because we are now friends. I'd like you not to kill her either. You should know if you go talk to her that she enchanted me, so be aware."

[cibet44]

Interesting post. These are exactly the kinds of things I would like to see the authors of the Pathfinder Tales novels tackle in their prose. A novel based on the game, to me, would seem like the perfect place to describe some of these things and how they look and feel in the world. Wouldn't it?

[Charender]

I have always argued that the PF intrepretation of spell identification is misinterpreted.

PF on spellcraft

Spoiler:

Identify a spell as it is being cast 15 + spell level
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.

Unless you are standing right next to the caster, all spell identifications should be increased due to distance.

PF on perception

Spoiler:

Perception Modifiers DC Modifier
Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet
Through a closed door +5
Through a wall +10/foot of thickness
Favorable conditions1 –2
Unfavorable conditions1 +2
Terrible conditions2 +5
Creature making the check is distracted +5
Creature making the check is asleep +10
Creature or object is invisible +20

In 3.5 it was flat out impossible to identify spells with no verbal or somatic component. I personally believe that is a spell has no components, then that spellcasting cannot be seen, and thus cannot be identified.

Even if you think that you can always ID a spell, if you are trying to identify a spell with no verbal, somatic, or material component, that spellcasting is effectively invisible(+20 DC). The caster is 50 feet away(+5 DC). Even ghost sound would have DC of 40 in that situation.

Overall, this eliminates a lot of the problems with people always knowing what spell is being cast.

[Jeraa]

Quote:

In 3.5 it was flat out impossible to identify spells with no verbal or somatic component. I personally believe that is a spell has no components, then that spellcasting cannot be seen, and thus cannot be identified.

Not entirely impossible in 3.5. If the spell had an ongoing effect, you could still identify it.

Quote:

DC 20 + Spell Level. Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

Or if you had to roll a save against a spell:

Quote:

DC 25+ spell level. After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry.

Note that seeing or hearing the components was not necessary for either of those, but you were identifying them after they were cast, not during.

[Charender]

Jeraa wrote:

Quote:

In 3.5 it was flat out impossible to identify spells with no verbal or somatic component. I personally believe that is a spell has no components, then that spellcasting cannot be seen, and thus cannot be identified.

Not entirely impossible in 3.5. If the spell had an ongoing effect, you could still identify it.

Quote:

DC 20 + Spell Level. Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.

Or if you had to roll a save against a spell:

Quote:

DC 25+ spell level. After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry.

Note that seeing or hearing the components was not necessary for either of those, but you were identifying them after they were cast, not during.

Sorry, i should have been more clear. It was impossible to ID a spell from the spellcasting.

I am aware that you could still ID the spell effects. In PF that function has been moved into the Knowledge(Arcana). That form of identification works if...
A. The spell has visible effects. Charm, detect thoughts, etc do not have any visible effect.
B. The spell's effects are not intentionally misleading. An illusion of a summoned monster cannot be visually distinguished from an actual summoned monster.

Any illusionist worth their salt can get around Knowledge(Arcana).

[Charender]

Also, unfavorable and terrible perception penalties a are vague. Wearing a cloak, and turning your back to someone could qualify as a terrible condition for identifying the spell(+5 to spellcraft DC).

[Liam Warner]

cranewings wrote:

I think that the charming effect of a lot of classic sorcerers are best described as self buffs. Back in my 2e days, we considered 25 a godly stat, so anything with a 25 got a free pass on a lot of actions.

If a sorcerer with an 18 charisma, wearing a hat of charisma, casts a self charisma buff, she will "enchant" anyone she talks to. When a human beings charisma surpasses human limits, humans sit up and take notice.

As far as direct enchantments and illusions, to me a lot of those are just combat powers. After a pc in a recent game was unable to kill the bbeg because she charmed him, he went back to the group and said, "she asked me not to tell you this but I didn't kill her because we are now friends. I'd like you not to kill her either. You should know if you go talk to her that she enchanted me, so be aware."

I tend to adopt the old 1st ed style of ability limits using a base 18 +/- racial ability modifiers. For example a human male or female can have up to 18 in all stats without magical enhancement (with it obviously they can go as high as they are able to enchant). A dwarf on the other hand naturally has +2 to con and wisdom and a -2 to charisma so they're max stats they can achieve by rolling/level ups are Str: 18, Dex: 18, Con: 20, Int: 18, Wis: 20, Cha 16. The odds of someone getting there are small especially in lower level games but this dwarven paragon is tough and wiser than any human could ever hope to be without magic albeit a little grumpy at being bothered constantly for his wisdom.

I'm not sure I agree with that fighters actions as that seems to be pushing the limits of the spell. He was asked by his "best friend" not to tell others she was alive if he was going to break her confidence and not only tell them he didn't kill her but that she was using enchantments on him well that should have invovled ALOT of soul searching of the do I do this . . . maybe she's just misunderstood . . . they would try to kill her etc. Unless his character had a habit of of telling every secret he ever heard to everyone. Afterall with an adventuring party he's part of he'd know what he just did is going to gurantee they'll go after her with everything they've got and they'll probably succeed because he gave away how she starts off protecting herself. To me it sounds like he was just trying to justify violating the spirit of what happened.

[cranewings]

Liam, I tend to agree but charms poop on player agency and a lot of players can't deal with them. If I'm going to pick a fight with a player, it isn't going to be over how he rps a charm after the bad guy got away.

[Cid Ayrbourne]

Ravingdork wrote:

How do tactile illusions (such as veil or mirage arcana) even function when illusions cannot support weight? What happens if my mirage arcana spell creates a tower, and people try walking up the steps to higher floors? How does a huge glabrezu disguised as a medium humanoid with its veil spell-like ability even enter a human dwelling without completely destroying the medium door frame, or sit in a chair sized for man without crushing it?

Let's examine these sequences from a neutral, outside observer. What one would likely see, is the people 'climbing' the tower, would just be walking around in a circle, as they 'climb the spiral staircase'. Those under the illusion aren't actually getting any higher, but they perceive that they are.

As for the Glabrezu, clearing it would take an effort for it to get through the door, but the magic of the illusion would make it seem a normal action, or disguise the movement altogether. Similarly for the chair; it would appear that he's sitting in the chair, when it's possibly been crushed, or merely being sat next to.

[cranewings]

I give illusions some pros and cons in my way of adjudicating them.

When a wizard uses change self to look like a certain guard, so he can walk into a castle unnoticed, how did he manage it? Personally, I don't have either a perfect memory nor any artistic ability. I couldn't draw someone's face and I tend to recognize acquaintances by their build, walk, and hair rather than by their faces.

If I had the power to make illusions, even if the illusion was taken straight from my memory, it wouldn't fool anyone close to the subject. The fabric would be wrong. The smile, the particulars of the skin, the eye color... all of it would be wrong. If I was a wizard though, I could still fool them.

This makes me think that the illusion isn't a play with light but an effect on the mind. I'm pretty sure it is described as a mind effect in the book.

When a wizard makes an illusion of himself as someone else, what he is doing is playing with the magical fabric of reality around himself, effectively changing his address. When people look at him, they reference the wrong address and whatever it is that they pull up is what they normally would from that space. If two people remember someone a little differently, they will see the illusion of that person differently between them.

Even in a fantasy world, unless it is really out there, adventurers don't see CRAZY STUFF on a daily basis. I mean, how many levels go by in most games before they see a dragon, and isn't that usually the first dragon they ever saw? Even if they believe in magic, when confronted with something weird, I don't think it is unreasonable to instantly think that it is a trick, a spell, a poison, a fairy, or something else closer to home. To just except something you never saw before that is defying the physical laws you grew up with is jarring, even if it is real and you believe it exists. I believe in ghosts in real life, really seriously, but if one walked into this Starbucks right now, I would think there was something in the tea I'm drinking before I would except it as a ghost.

I think illusions need to be things that people already expect to see or it automatically brings up a saving throw. Illusionists need to sell the illusion. I also sort of think invisibility really, really needs a stipulation, like if someone hears you before they see you they get a saving throw to ignore the illusion.

[Ravingdork]

A Discussion Example Stolen From Another Thread:

A spellcaster uses Mirage Arcana to create the illusion of a tower stronghold (20'x20'x180').

The PCs, failing their saves upon entering, split up to explore the tower. Some party members go up the stairs, others go into the basements, while still others explore the main floor.

What happens? Are they all somehow magically floating in the air/buried underground? Are they all in the same 20x20 area of ground, but totally unaware of each others' presence (effectively hiding in the illusion)? If it is the latter, what happens if they bump into each other? Do they simply not feel it? Do their brains/senses ignore it as if it didn't happen?

If a third party were to come across them, and made their save, would the first group be seen all just be standing around in a catatonic state, caught up in the illusion?

EDIT: After reading and discussing glamers, I think I have a much better idea of how Mirage Arcana would work.

The PCs would see the tower off in the distance (the illusion fills an area, but can be seen by anyone at any distance that a real building could be) and don't get saves.

They approach the tower, arriving at its front door a short while later. Unless they spend an action to investigate it closely, they don't get saves.

The PCs open the front door (or struggle with it if it is locked). They get saves for interacting with the illusion. Assuming they all fail, they eventually get inside (possibly expending resources to do so).

They all stand within the 20x20 area of the illusion that would be the base floor of the tower (effectively hiding inside the illusion). At this point they are trapped in the illusion in their mind until they physically leave the area in some manner or somebody makes their save. Even if they do leave the building, their mind is still tricked by the magic (if they go outside and look back they will still see the tower). Even if they split up and search multiple floors of the tower, they all remain trapped within the illusion created by their minds and thus actually believe they are split up even if they may all be standing next to each other.

This brings some new thoughts and questions to mind however:

1) At what frequency should they be making saves to disbelieve? Every time they take an action? Every round? Every minute, ten minutes, or hour? Every time they interact with the illusion (that is, they must leave the area, return and interact with it again to get a second save)?

2) If a third party arrived on scene, they would clearly see the tower (as it effects the entire world). Say said party recognized the tower's flag as belonging to a long hated enemy, and fireballed its ground floor from a distance, hoping to topple the incredibly tall narrow-looking tower. As an illusion that exists only in the minds of those observing it, it cannot physically stop the fireball or any other effect. Do the PCs standing within the illusion even notice that they just got blasted? And if so, is it enough to defeat the illusion* (or at least allow another save)--or did the room they were in suddenly seem to explode for no explicable reason (it's easy enough to say it was a spell trap they overlooked)? Does the fireballer believe that his fireball detonated against the wall, rather than exploding amidst the adventurer's whom he cannot see?

* This is one of the few instances where I MIGHT allow someone to auto-disbelieve the illusion.

EDIT:

What happens if an illusionist bent on revenge against a bunch of nobles, invites them all to his illusory 20x20x180 tower "for a party" which is actually a horrific trap?

Say there are more guests than could possibly fit in the 20x20 area that comprises the first floor? We've already established that they cannot go up to higher floors (even if they think they are), so what happens to anyone coming into the building that wouldn't otherwise fit? Are they shunted out and left wondering what happened? Or do they just stand in or near the doorway, convinced they've entered the building?

If it is the latter, what would more party goers perceive as they approach the door step overflowing with party guests?

I believe that glamers trick your senses and as such only really exist in the minds of those perceiving them. Your foot isn't going through the step of the stairs because it isn't actually there to begin with. It exists only in your perceptions--in your head. All of it. As such, it can also trick you into thinking you are walking up stairs even when you aren't.

An illusion that can trick all of your five senses is going to be nearly infallible (especially in a fantasy world where most anything can happen anyways). Simple things like stairs and bar dancing isn't going to be enough to defeat it, and it shouldn't--it is a pretty high level spell after all (on par with long range teleportation, outsider binding, and raw creation magic, etc.).

It's about as effective as the invisibility spell (or an SEP field*) in that it effects the perceptions of everyone who comes across it, without really allowing a save or a chance to avoid it.

* SEP Field:

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Life, the Universe and Everything excerpt: An SEP is something we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem.... The brain just edits it out, it's like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.

The technology involved in making something properly invisible is so mind-bogglingly complex that 999,999,999 times out of a billion it's simpler just to take the thing away and do without it....... The "Somebody Else's Problem field" is much simpler, more effective, and "can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery."

This is because it relies on people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain.

[Liam Warner]

cranewings wrote:

Liam, I tend to agree but charms poop on player agency and a lot of players can't deal with them. If I'm going to pick a fight with a player, it isn't going to be over how he rps a charm after the bad guy got away.

I use the simple rule what you do is what you do. That if Tim wouldn't kill a party member out of hand because they did something evil he shouldn't kill an enemy. If he casually violates the confidence of the BBEG he should casually violate the confidence's of his fellow adventurers.

Otherwise you get I love you, I want to marry you and have your children, but I know out of game its the result of a spell so STAB. Oh I need to justify it . . . he was evil and the only thing left for me to do was kill him for the man he used to be.

[cranewings]

Liam, people can have mixed loyalties. Just because the spell makes someone your best friend doesn't diminish the loyalty to your other friends. If you have maximum closeness with other people you have fought along side, someone becoming your best friend through magic just adds a loyalty.

If you know there is a conflict, you know there is a conflict. It doesn't change your memory or reason.

I have been told things in confidence by bad people I think of as friends and warned other people about them when necessary. "Don't trust him, he steals. If you loan him something, don't be shocked when you don't get it back."

[Finn K]

Liam Warner wrote:

cranewings wrote:

Liam, I tend to agree but charms poop on player agency and a lot of players can't deal with them. If I'm going to pick a fight with a player, it isn't going to be over how he rps a charm after the bad guy got away.

I use the simple rule what you do is what you do. That if Tim wouldn't kill a party member out of hand because they did something evil he shouldn't kill an enemy. If he casually violates the confidence of the BBEG he should casually violate the confidence's of his fellow adventurers.

Otherwise you get I love you, I want to marry you and have your children, but I know out of game its the result of a spell so STAB. Oh I need to justify it . . . he was evil and the only thing left for me to do was kill him for the man he used to be.

For that matter-- in a world where "charms" and other such spells exist, and people (especially experienced adventurers) are familiar with such things... you might not be able to do anything about feeling/reacting like that person is your "bestest best friend", but when your old reliable buddies start figuratively b**** slapping you with the contradictions in your sudden surge of feeling and/or resulting behavior, particularly if your new "bestest best friend" has already escaped and left the scene and isn't there to help you resolve the conflicts--

You might just recognize and be able to report that you feel like you're under a spell... even though you can't change your emotional responses.

[Liam Warner]

Sure but in the example you gave there didn't seem to be any conflict.

Friend A: Please don't tell them I'm alive, leaves.
To Friend B: Hey did you know Friend A is still alive and uses enchantment magic to control me?

Now if they were hearing rumours of his still doing evil acts or the like I can see his having to decide whether or not to say something but that wasn't the case.

Let me ask you did he even have to say something? Or could he have just returned said "its dealt with" and had all of them go off to their next mission without any further trouble.

To use your example of a friend who steals would you tell another friend not to loan things to them if the second friend was going to have nothing to do with the prior friend?

@Finn K
I'm not objecting to the conflict resolution of spells so much as the specific way it was done. There should have been no reason for the friend here for the friends to start pointing out conflicts until he said that he'd left them alive inspite of being specifically asked not to.

[cranewings]

Liam, you can think that all you want, but what is important is that the player feel like they control their character. You would be right in a totally flat and logical environment, but there are a thousand variables (including the likelihood that said bad guy can and will go kill another mass of people), the feelings of the player, and his interpretation of his character.

If I'm going to dictate to him specifically how he behaves when he is charmed then I might as well play his character for him. When I think that is appropriate, I just tell the player his character experiences lost time, or I take over control.

Charm person is a crappy first level spell. I'm not going to get too picky with people on how they respond to it, and I really do think the player feeling ok with how it goes down is important.

[Liam Warner]

I think you misunderstood me I'm not saying the character must do x I'm just saying the if the player does X when his friend does Y then if the character is charmed to regard A as a friend and A does Y then the player must do X just as he would if he weren't charmed. In your example he seems to take actions specifically to get round being charmed to regard the BBEG as a friend.

[Ravingdork]

Anyone care to tackle any of the other topics?

[Finn Kveldulfr]

Liam Warner wrote:

Sure but in the example you gave there didn't seem to be any conflict.

Friend A: Please don't tell them I'm alive, leaves.
To Friend B: Hey did you know Friend A is still alive and uses enchantment magic to control me?

Now if they were hearing rumours of his still doing evil acts or the like I can see his having to decide whether or not to say something but that wasn't the case.

Let me ask you did he even have to say something? Or could he have just returned said "its dealt with" and had all of them go off to their next mission without any further trouble.

To use your example of a friend who steals would you tell another friend not to loan things to them if the second friend was going to have nothing to do with the prior friend?

@Finn K
I'm not objecting to the conflict resolution of spells so much as the specific way it was done. There should have been no reason for the friend here for the friends to start pointing out conflicts until he said that he'd left them alive inspite of being specifically asked not to.

Liam--

Good points. Yes, the remark to "Friend B" is something that I'd agree really pushes the issue in the wrong way, because the charmed character probably should have just kept his mouth shut or said "it's dealt with" or some such remark in that case.

The points I was bringing up don't apply (and wouldn't in the example you illustrate), unless there is something (either his old friends directly, or circumstances and physical evidence left behind) that forces the charmed character to see the contradictions involved between his emotions, his current behavior, and past events-- then he may recognize he's been charmed even while still being under the charm, since it's not 'total mind control' like the dominate spells are.

[ryric]

Ravingdork wrote:

Anyone care to tackle any of the other topics?

Hmm. I think of things like mirage arcana as being like Star Trek holodecks. The illusion changes around you to make it seem like you are wlaking up stairs, entering new rooms, and so forth, but really you aren't doing very much. It's a little tough on suspension of disbelief when you have multiple people in different virtual "locations" but I think it's a high enough level spell to justify the "holodeck" type effect.

Perhaps the big demon disguised as a little elf girl does wreck up the place, but no one notices until he leaves. Or, alternatively, the user of the effect has to be careful not to do things that would give themselves away. Just don't sit in the chair or go through a too small doorway, and use Bluff to lie about why you won't. (I like the second interpretation better because it rewards intelligent play)

[Blake Duffey]

Great thread

Some of these topics, such as the inconsistency of illusions, have been broken for 30+ years. I wish there was a better answer than handwaving, but I don't think there is. The save ping is the same thing - you simply cant use magic as a 'passive scan' without drawing attention. I'd love to see these 'fixed' in some future edition or overriding supplement.

[Ravingdork]

Blake Duffey wrote:

Great thread

Some of these topics, such as the inconsistency of illusions, have been broken for 30+ years. I wish there was a better answer than handwaving, but I don't think there is. The save ping is the same thing - you simply cant use magic as a 'passive scan' without drawing attention. I'd love to see these 'fixed' in some future edition or overriding supplement.

Due to their very nature, I'm sure there will always be some problems and necessary hand-waving with illusions. However, I firmly believe that certain things could be fixed, such as making them much harder to identify than other spells, and clarifying how often one must make a save whilst interacting with an ongoing illusion.