How to recognize a monster / or NPc has a condition

[Cuttler]

Hi all...simple question, is there any place in the rules that specifically says that you know if a monster has any ongoing condition (blind, stun, confused, etc)

For exemple, if i cast glitterdust on a few ogres, does RAW allows me to know which ones are affected and thus the party, s rogue could target him first?

Some conditions are probably obvious such as stun , dazed, etc

But not so sure about deaf, confused or even blind.

It would make sens to me that a blind monster would not react normally and would thus recognize such ...but do i have to wait until its turn to know he is affected by the spell???

[Lincoln Hills]

Within RaW: A PC can use Spellcraft to 'identify the effects' of a spell. However, this disregards the wide range of ways a character can gain a condition from something other than a spell. A character under the 'charmed' or 'dominated' condition can be detected via Sense Motive, which is the rule I extrapolated into my house rules for detecting other conditions.

House rules: With this system, a Sense Motive check is necessary to note a condition - as a free action, against DC 15 or so (unless the NPC is trying to conceal its condition - then it's an opposed check) for conditions that have no obvious physical effects.

A Heal check against the same DC is what I use for the handful of conditions that do have obvious physical effects, as well as recognizing that a creature is suffering from negative levels or ability damage/drain.

The DC drops considerably for conditions such as 'Petrified' and 'Dead', of course.

[Avianfoo]

Conditions are obvious. No check required. Unless it is really hard to tell, which is less often the case. There is no blanket rule because it is really situational.

Regardless of whether or not the PC knows about the condition, the condition still will have all negative effects, like being sneak attacked by a rogue due to the blind condition. The rogue doesn't need to know why the target left himself wide open. "Shank in the kidney, sir. Oh dear, you are blind. So sorry."

And I wouldn't but it past a NPC to act like they arn't deaf or blind but then a Bluff opposed by Sense Motive would be the order of the day.

[Cuttler]

Most conditions should be obvious (but not all) and I agree that the condition still will have all negative effects (and that is the DM,s job to take note of this), however, it would be useful for the rogue to know which of the monster is blinded (for example) because it failed its save...

I like the house rules that Lincoln proposed though for cases that would not be obvious (such as maybe confused or deaf, etc)

BTW: the question could also apply to saves! Would a Pc know that a monster failed its save against charm monster, bestow curse or any spell that has no obvious evidence of success or failure! I guess the same house rules could be applied!

[Claxon]

I believe somewhere if the core rules it states that a spellcaster knows when someone has successfully saved against their spell.

[DM_Blake]

Magic Section:

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.

[Ilja]

Stun and dazed doesn't have to be obvious, but if you can't automatically see that a person is prone (under normal circumstances) you might want to consider getting glasses.

[Ascalaphus]

I think most conditions are obvious, although with Bluff you might be able to pretend to be unaffected, or to have a condition you don't actually have. Like fooling the rogue into thinking you're blind when in fact you're baiting him to get into your full attack range.

[Claxon]

DM_Blake wrote:

Magic Section:

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.

DM Blake, I always find your posts helpful and find they provide further illuminaiton on so many things. I also tend to agree with your opinions on a great many things.

I think I may have a nerd crush on you for your system mastery.