RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Even in PFS there aren't rules for everything.
True, but I think it's bad form for a GM to invalidate character build choices because they don't like how it fits into the setting.
If a GM thinks that all spellcasting in social situations is taboo, then all of those charm person, enhanced diplomacy, zone of truth, etc. spells I memorized or learned suddenly become completely useless. That's not a "fun" thing to spring on a new player.
|
But presumably your character isn't stupid enough to cast these spells directly in front of your target so that he can see some random smiling guy walking up and randomly casting a spell. Or after negotiations go badly your guy casts right in the guys view. What's he supposed to think?
If you are stupid with your social casting then NPCs are going to react negatively. If you do so smartly or clandestinely, then they might not notice that you even cast a spell.
But assuming that some car salesman smiley guy approaching you while casting a spell at you wouldn't elicit a negative response is sheer lunacy.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But assuming that some car salesman smiley guy approaching you while casting a spell at you wouldn't elicit a negative response is sheer lunacy.
I think the claim is less "wouldn't elicit a negative response" and more "wouldn't make his attitude toward me immediately drop from indifferent, right past unfriendly and hostile, and on into trying to kill me".
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
But presumably your character isn't stupid enough to cast these spells directly in front of your target so that he can see some random smiling guy walking up and randomly casting a spell. Or after negotiations go badly your guy casts right in the guys view. What's he supposed to think?
If you are stupid with your social casting then NPCs are going to react negatively. If you do so smartly or clandestinely, then they might not notice that you even cast a spell.
But assuming that some car salesman smiley guy approaching you while casting a spell at you wouldn't elicit a negative response is sheer lunacy.
As far as I know, there are no rules for how to cast a spell clandestinely. Are you saying that all social spellcasters should take Silent Spell and invest heavily in Stealth, so they can always sneak up on their targets and charm them from the shadows first?
|
|
Walk around a corner? Have an ally distract him? Be invisible as you approach? Bluff him that you have tourrettes before you cast? And that's just off the top of my head. Circumstances and environment might lead to more options accordingly.
Walking up and baldly casting at him and expecting no consequences (which would be subject to circumstances) is lazy.
|
Even in PFS there aren't rules for everything.True, but I think it's bad form for a GM to invalidate character build choices because they don't like how it fits into the setting.
If a GM thinks that all spellcasting in social situations is taboo, then all of those charm person, enhanced diplomacy, zone of truth, etc. spells I memorized or learned suddenly become completely useless. That's not a "fun" thing to spring on a new player.
They're not useless, any more than getting a reaction if you walk into a restaurant holding a two handed sword invalidates the two handed sword. They're just not the invisible, undetectable solution to everything.
People can tell when they're under a zone of truth if they make the save: if they can't recognize the spell they still feel it.
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.
Leaving people wondering just WHAT you tried to attack their minds with. I can't imagine that getting a very friendly reaction.
|
|
But assuming that some car salesman smiley guy approaching you while casting a spell at you wouldn't elicit a negative response is sheer lunacy.I think the claim is less "wouldn't elicit a negative response" and more "wouldn't make his attitude toward me immediately drop from indifferent, right past unfriendly and hostile, and on into trying to kill me".
Dependent on circumstances that's exactly what might happen. But circumstances also might dictate that he drops only one category and/or imposes a penalty to future social interactions.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@BNW - For the most part, this thread isn't talking about how NPCs would react to you after feeling themselves make a saving throw against the spell you cast on them. It's about how they react when someone to whom they're indifferent starts casting a spell. Some GMs are saying that NPCs would be shoot you in the face before you finished the first finger-wiggle.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Dependent on circumstances that's exactly what might happen. But circumstances also might dictate that he drops only one category and/or imposes a penalty to future social interactions.But assuming that some car salesman smiley guy approaching you while casting a spell at you wouldn't elicit a negative response is sheer lunacy.I think the claim is less "wouldn't elicit a negative response" and more "wouldn't make his attitude toward me immediately drop from indifferent, right past unfriendly and hostile, and on into trying to kill me".
Yes.
But for some GMs, initiating combat is the norm while future social penalties and an attitude drop is reserved for exceptionally-friendly and very rare circumstances. For others, it's the other way around, with a social impact being the norm while it takes harsh circumstances to make a not-obviously-hostile casting provoke someone into trying to gut you.
Reducing the disparity between those extremes does not seem like an unreasonable goal.
|
Back to the OP about how people will react to magic... the analogy about things in pockets keeps coming up, and I think is is misleading. Let me see if I can express myself properly...
Casting a spell isn't like reaching into a pocket and pulling out either a gun or a pencil. Casting a spell is more properly like pulling a knife out of your pocket. Clearly, there are many legitimate uses for a knife that are totally legal, benign, even helpful, and knives are very common everywhere, and not many of us have ever seen a knife used to injure someone. But here's the important part: it is not the knife itself that is in question, but both the context, and the *motivations of the wielder*.
If someone pulls a knife on me with no warning or announcement, in a situation where I didn't feel a knife was particularly relevant to the task at hand (buying something in a store, say), I would have every reason to be alarmed, even though most times I've seen a knife, it hasn't been used to stab me, and knives are everywhere. If someone pulls out a knife because they're about to slice me some fresh sushi,I'm probably OK with it. Ditto if someone says, "Oh, there's a loose thread hanging from your shirt, let me just take care of that for you," and *then* pulls out a knife.
To me, the context is the important thing in determining a reaction, and that is hard to codify in guidelines or rules.
|
|
... and using the knife analogy, I would expect the same context-based reaction if someone *actually* pulled a knife out in public (or brought a two-handed sword into a restaurant, as BNW mentioned). Maybe this is one way to have a guideline, by equating public spellcasting to other, more easily-relatable events like pulling a (rabbit/knife/gun/thermonuclear device) out of your pocket in public. It will still require discretionary interpretation of the context by the GM, but would help minimize the fact that none of us have ever been the victim of public spellcasting in real life.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Taking a step back from individual replies for a moment and speaking generally...
In a nutshell, my feelings come down to this:
Typically, NPCs who have an attitude of indifferent toward the PCs react, well, indifferently to any non-hostile action taken by the PCs unless there's a specific reason to react a different way to a particular action. All I'm interested in knowing is whether that same baseline applies to spellcasting (and if not, how it's different).
Is there any objection to wanting some shared expectations on that?
|
|
@BNW - For the most part, this thread isn't talking about how NPCs would react to you after feeling themselves make a saving throw against the spell you cast on them. It's about how they react when someone to whom they're indifferent starts casting a spell. Some GMs are saying that NPCs would be shoot you in the face before you finished the first finger-wiggle.
I'm sure some NPC's would.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Back to the OP about how people will react to magic... he analogy about things in pockets keeps coming up, and I think is is misleading. Let me see if I can express myself properly...
Casting a spell isn't like reaching into a pocket and pulling out either a gun or a pencil. Casting a spell is more properly like pulling a knife out of your pocket. Clearly, there are many legitimate uses for a knife that are totally legal, benign, even helpful, and knives are very common everywhere, and not many of us have ever seen a knife used to injure someone. But here's the important part: it is not the knife itself that is in question, but both the context, and the *motivations of the wielder*.
If someone pulls a knife on me with no warning or announcement, in a situation where I didn't feel a knife was particularly relevant to the task at hand (buying something in a store, say), I would have every reason to be alarmed, even though most times I've seen a knife, it hasn't been used to stab me, and knives are everywhere. If someone pulls out a knife because they're about to slice me some fresh sushi,I'm probably OK with it. Ditto if someone says, "Oh, there's a loose thread hanging from your shirt, let me just take care of that for you," and *then* pulls out a knife.
To me, the context is the important thing in determining a reaction, and that is hard to codify in guidelines or rules.
Honestly, if what you just wrote was what most GMs followed (including the examples in the "not alarming" category), I bet most of the folks clamoring for a baseline would be more than satisfied. In fact, their reaction would probably be much like a drowning man whose head finally went above the waterline, gasping for breath.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
As far as I know, there are no rules for how to cast a spell clandestinely. Are you saying that all social spellcasters should take Silent Spell and invest heavily in Stealth, so they can always sneak up on their targets and charm them from the shadows first?But presumably your character isn't stupid enough to cast these spells directly in front of your target so that he can see some random smiling guy walking up and randomly casting a spell. Or after negotiations go badly your guy casts right in the guys view. What's he supposed to think?
If you are stupid with your social casting then NPCs are going to react negatively. If you do so smartly or clandestinely, then they might not notice that you even cast a spell.
But assuming that some car salesman smiley guy approaching you while casting a spell at you wouldn't elicit a negative response is sheer lunacy.
The only thing I found is spell bluff, but it doesn't do what it sounds like it'd do :P
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I guess that's the crux of it, Jiggy: does spellcasting fall into the "non-hostile" category, or the "potentially hostile" category, in the view of most citizens?
According to some GMs (in and out of this thread), even the guy slicing your sushi for you would provoke a dramatic reaction, because KNIFE! And I suspect that a great deal of this thread's momentum comes from certain players desperately crying out for their GMs to stop doing such ridiculous things.
|
The only thing I found is spell bluff, but it doesn't do what it sounds like it'd do :PAs far as I know, there are no rules for how to cast a spell clandestinely. Are you saying that all social spellcasters should take Silent Spell and invest heavily in Stealth, so they can always sneak up on their targets and charm them from the shadows first?But presumably your character isn't stupid enough to cast these spells directly in front of your target so that he can see some random smiling guy walking up and randomly casting a spell. Or after negotiations go badly your guy casts right in the guys view. What's he supposed to think?
If you are stupid with your social casting then NPCs are going to react negatively. If you do so smartly or clandestinely, then they might not notice that you even cast a spell.
But assuming that some car salesman smiley guy approaching you while casting a spell at you wouldn't elicit a negative response is sheer lunacy.
Probably my favorite feat out of the ISWG: Secret Signs!
You are particularly adept at communicating with others via innuendo, gestures, and secret hand signs.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Bluff checks made to pass secret messages. In addition, you are adept at hiding the somatic components of spellcasting. If you cast a spell that has only somatic components, an observer must make a Perception check opposed by your Sleight of Hand check to notice your spellcasting. Spellcraft checks made to identify any spell you cast that has somatic components take a –2 penalty.
Sure, it needs either metamagic, one of a small list of somatic-only spells, or simply being a deaf oracle, but such is the payment to be able to cast spells without people knowing; that's a pretty powerful ability.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
The only thing I found is spell bluff, but it doesn't do what it sounds like it'd do :PAs far as I know, there are no rules for how to cast a spell clandestinely. Are you saying that all social spellcasters should take Silent Spell and invest heavily in Stealth, so they can always sneak up on their targets and charm them from the shadows first?But presumably your character isn't stupid enough to cast these spells directly in front of your target so that he can see some random smiling guy walking up and randomly casting a spell. Or after negotiations go badly your guy casts right in the guys view. What's he supposed to think?
If you are stupid with your social casting then NPCs are going to react negatively. If you do so smartly or clandestinely, then they might not notice that you even cast a spell.
But assuming that some car salesman smiley guy approaching you while casting a spell at you wouldn't elicit a negative response is sheer lunacy.
Probably my favorite feat out of the ISWG: Secret Signs!
Sure, it needs either metamagic, one of a small list of somatic-only spells, or simply being a deaf oracle, but such is the payment to be able to cast spells without people knowing; that's a pretty powerful ability.You are particularly adept at communicating with others via innuendo, gestures, and secret hand signs.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Bluff checks made to pass secret messages. In addition, you are adept at hiding the somatic components of spellcasting. If you cast a spell that has only somatic components, an observer must make a Perception check opposed by your Sleight of Hand check to notice your spellcasting. Spellcraft checks made to identify any spell you cast that has somatic components take a –2 penalty.
Awesome! Deaf oracles get better and better!!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Probably my favorite feat out of the ISWG: Secret Signs!
Sure, it needs either metamagic, one of a small list of somatic-only spells, or simply being a deaf oracle, but such is the payment to be able to cast spells without people knowing; that's a pretty powerful ability.You are particularly adept at communicating with others via innuendo, gestures, and secret hand signs.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Bluff checks made to pass secret messages. In addition, you are adept at hiding the somatic components of spellcasting. If you cast a spell that has only somatic components, an observer must make a Perception check opposed by your Sleight of Hand check to notice your spellcasting. Spellcraft checks made to identify any spell you cast that has somatic components take a –2 penalty.
Neat! That sounds really tempting for my new arcanist, for flavor reasons.
|
|
Dependent on circumstances that's exactly what might happen. But circumstances also might dictate that he drops only one category and/or imposes a penalty to future social interactions.But assuming that some car salesman smiley guy approaching you while casting a spell at you wouldn't elicit a negative response is sheer lunacy.I think the claim is less "wouldn't elicit a negative response" and more "wouldn't make his attitude toward me immediately drop from indifferent, right past unfriendly and hostile, and on into trying to kill me".Yes.
But for some GMs, initiating combat is the norm while future social penalties and an attitude drop is reserved for exceptionally-friendly and very rare circumstances. For others, it's the other way around, with a social impact being the norm while it takes harsh circumstances to make a not-obviously-hostile casting provoke someone into trying to gut you.
Reducing the disparity between those extremes does not seem like an unreasonable goal.
I believe it is. You are taking away the GMs right to rule on things based on circumstances. If you think a gm went too far one way or another, talk to them about it civilly. If you get no satisfaction then don't play with that gm anymore, at least with that character.
If some rule were enstated to dictate how a GM can handle this, and it allows any amount of subjectivity based on circumstance, we will see an influx of one sided complaints about how some GM totally cheated.
Just let a GM make a call based on tge info at hand and stop trying to robotify us.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Maybe I can present the issue of this thread in a different way:
If a PC casts a spell, I don't think anyone has an issue with a negative NPC reaction if the reason given is "Because you just marched up to him in combat gear and started casting right in his face."
Rather, what folks in this thread are asserting they don't like (and what some folks in this thread continue to assert is entirely appropriate) is when an NPC has a negative reaction when the encounter was otherwise entirely sociable and polite, with the only reason given for a negative reaction being "you started casting", even in a setting with no unusual distaste for magic.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stop trying to robotify us.
There's probably half a dozen instances in this thread of you responding to a desire for a new guideline with an accusation of people trying to turn GMs into computers or robots. It's unhelpful hyperbole, and is more confrontational than most posts in this thread. Please stop. If you disagree with someone's point, fine. But all the "you're trying to do X to us" finger-pointing is really not helpful. Thanks.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Just let a GM make a call based on the info at hand and stop trying to robotify us.
What info at hand? The entire point is that there is no information that tells us how the average NPC is likely to react to spellcasting. With the exception of extreme cases like Rahadoum, I've never seen any scenario or rulebook give so much as a hint as to how people will react to spellcasting in social situations.
If someone in town can cast cure spells, you can bet it's getting cast; whether he's the only caster in his little village like a frontier town's only doctor, or the local temple selling cures to citizens much like a clinic. Either way, are you honestly going to suggest that getting cure light wounds instead of a Heal check is like using a gun instead of a can opener? Seriously?I think the thread needs to get back toward the OP. Knowing how common magic is is useful but does not answer the questions. Even assuming magic is super common, is it useful for guarding gates, monitoring economic transactions, etc.? If not, and I feel it is not, then it does not matter how common magic is people would not use it.
Even if everyone has a pistol, most people would not use that pistol to open their can of soup. A can opener works better. Likewise, even if everyone has magic, is it the best option for the social interactions at issue here?
No, seriously. Not sure how you pulled out cure light wounds, the OP wanted to know about magic used in social interactions. Detect Magic, Zone of Truth, Alignment detection. That is why I used words like "economic transactions" and "guarding gates". Obviously, magic is useful for healing wounds. It is also useful for going to other planes, altering reality, summoning demons, etc.
It is not so obvious if zone of truth is more useful than sense motive in most situations or that detect magic is worth the time and effort or alignment detection in a world where there is nothing wrong with being evil. That is what I was suggesting needs to be discussed.
|
|
I can't think of a single reason, in an entirely friendly and social setting someone would randomly start casting a spell out in plain view without providing their own context or excuse or asking permission beforehand.
So yes. Without some good reason (that the NPC could see without thinking about it--the host is choking on poison) spellcasting in A social setting is likely to get a negative reaction. Depending on circumstances, that negative reaction might be violent.
|
|
Just let a GM make a call based on the info at hand and stop trying to robotify us.What info at hand? The entire point is that there is no information that tells us how the average NPC is likely to react to spellcasting. With the exception of extreme cases like Rahadoum, I've never seen any scenario or rulebook give so much as a hint as to how people will react to spellcasting in social situations.
ISWG has a pretty good baseline. Its vague, but it still provides a baseline. Circumstances always provide most of tge info a GM needs to make a fair ruling. Hamstringing a GM might do more harm to immersion and verisimilitude than not.
|
|
stop trying to robotify us.There's probably half a dozen instances in this thread of you responding to a desire for a new guideline with an accusation of people trying to turn GMs into computers or robots. It's unhelpful hyperbole, and is more confrontational than most posts in this thread. Please stop. If you disagree with someone's point, fine. But all the "you're trying to do X to us" finger-pointing is really not helpful. Thanks.
I don't see it as hyperbole. I think as a Vaseline the ISWG is sufficient. Having more fluff info per region or country on how tge general populace views magic would of course be useful. But any amount of trying to codify when a GM can have an NPC draw a sword is not a good idea.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I can't think of a single reason, in an entirely friendly and social setting someone would randomly start casting a spell out in plain view without providing their own context or excuse or asking permission beforehand.
When I referred to a friendly and social encounter, I was meaning to suggest that the PC did provide that context/excuse/ask permission, or was otherwise not seeming very threatening at all.
Contrast this with some folks' claims in this thread that, even if you do the equivalent of Scott's "Here, lemme get that loose string for you" example, NPCs will still assume you're attacking them for no other reason than that the PC's action was magical in nature.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't see it as hyperbole. I think as a Vaseline the ISWG is sufficient. Having more fluff info per region or country on how tge general populace views magic would of course be useful. But any amount of trying to codify when a GM can have an NPC draw a sword is not a good idea.stop trying to robotify us.There's probably half a dozen instances in this thread of you responding to a desire for a new guideline with an accusation of people trying to turn GMs into computers or robots. It's unhelpful hyperbole, and is more confrontational than most posts in this thread. Please stop. If you disagree with someone's point, fine. But all the "you're trying to do X to us" finger-pointing is really not helpful. Thanks.
Saying it like that is much better, thanks. :)
|
|
I can't think of a single reason, in an entirely friendly and social setting someone would randomly start casting a spell out in plain view without providing their own context or excuse or asking permission beforehand.When I referred to a friendly and social encounter, I was meaning to suggest that the PC did provide that context/excuse/ask permission, or was otherwise not seeming very threatening at all.
Contrast this with some folks' claims in this thread that, even if you do the equivalent of Scott's "Here, lemme get that loose string for you" example, NPCs will still assume you're attacking them for no other reason than that the PC's action was magical in nature.
The example of ridiculous reactions is a function of a bad GM choice. Not a bad or lack of a rule.
I have to assume that these anecdotes are the exception rather than the rule, and creating a rule to address the lowest common denominator will cause more good GMs to stop GMing than make bad GMs good.
The solution is not a new rule, but to patiently help the GMs learn how to adjudicate to less extremes.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
3. Magic and standard business practices.
A tired adventurer strides into a small town looking to find a scroll of protection from evil because he just realized there were probably more demons around than he was ready for. He enters the store of the local wizard, who sells these sorts of scrolls and other arcane services, and starts browsing the shelves. That wizard, sensing a sale in his future, chuckles to himself and quickly casts detect magic so that he has more knowledge about his new customer.
That wizard owns a business, clearly has magical ability, and sees casting legal, harmless spells as being done in the service of his own profit margin, since it allows him to push customers towards specific sales. All of this seems completely within his rights as a shop owner. All of it is completely legal and within his best interests.
The adventurer, used to these kind of scrutiny at magic shops, sighs and says "Shopkeeper, I'm in no mood to make a bargain today. I just need a scroll for my mission."
The shopkeeper shrugs and says, "Well, your cloak of resistance seems a little weak compared to that sword you're carrying around. Are you sure I can't change your mind?"
The adventurer throws some coins on the counter. "Just the scroll and I'll be on my way."
Just another day in the magic shop business, right? Or is it time for our PFS agents to freak out and kill everybody in the shop for giving them the arcane hairy eyeball?
|
|
Just another day in the magic shop business, right? Or is it time for our PFS agents to freak out and kill everybody in the shop for giving them the arcane hairy eyeball?
Wait wait wait... the guy has a lot of loot. Exactly why is the PFS agent waiting for the hairy eyeball BEFORE killing and looting?
Sheesh, give us a realistic example! :)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
3. Magic and standard business practices.
After a long mission to Mendev, one Pathfinder races through the streets of Absalom for a meeting with Guaril Karela. He stops in a dark alley in the Puddles and tries to catch his breath.
"Guaril, I'm sorry I'm--"
"Shut up. You're late. Turn around." Karela motions and two men walk forward. One checks the Pathfinder expertly for hidden weapons. The other casts a series of detection spells and stares intently. They look over at Karela with regretful faces.
"He's clean."
Karela finally steps closer, grabbing the Pathfinder agent by the collar. "You screw up one more faction mission for me, and I'll have your tongue cut out. We need to expand our holdings into Mendev. Do not make me regret trusting you."
The Pathfinder nods frantically. "Of course, Cousin. I'll do better next time."
But Karela has already moved off into the darkness.
|
|
I've always wondered how magic shopkeepers keep from getting robbed. You know, one Heightened Dominate and I think you could just clean a guy out.
Duck around the corner and call the guards if anyone ever begins casting a full round casting time spell. Even if you fail your Spellcraft, those are never something you want to see to completion (OK, enlarge isn't that bad, but it doesn't even make any sense to cast).
|
|
Well if you're using a 9th level spell (10th level spell? multiple traits entirely focused on dominate?) or a rod worth more than the entire WBL of a 10th level character and which is multiple times too expensive to find in any market, even in Absalom, a shopkeep is not going to stand a chance. Your rod that you brought in was probably worth more than the wares at that particular shopkeep's stall combined. That's why it's so nice to have the factions step in for you with Fame at higher levels (even though it can be rough at lower levels when you want to pick up a common cheapo item and can't get it, Fame access vastly outstrips the ability to find big items in a standard marketplace).
I've always wondered how magic shopkeepers keep from getting robbed. You know, one Heightened Dominate and I think you could just clean a guy out.
This is exactly why I stole this idea from someone: All worthwhile magic shops keep their real items in extra-dimensional spaces. The person you talk to for buying the item is just a shopkeeper and doesn't even know how to access the item. The wizard the shopkeeper reports to in order to finish a sale would easily detect any enchantments that were cast upon his minion.
What happens when it's time to exchange the gold for the magic item? Does everyone put their hands on the holsters?
It doesn't matter. The wizard/owner would have the names of everyone involved before he even gives the item to his shopkeeper and he would probably even scry them as well. False names wouldn't work since only proven customers would get access to the best items. Would be thieves would just have paid bounty hunters coming after them.
Bonus points if the wizard put arcane marks on all of his items so he can track them. Even more bonus points if the wizard is a member of some sort of magic items guild that has organized guards and dedicated item retrievers (plus all the other stores in the guild would deny goods to the offenders). Basically, stealing from a powerful wizard (or similar item crafter) should be only slightly less dangerous/stupid than stealing from a dragon.
|
I believe gnomes get prestidigitation as a spell like ability, namely it has no components. I don't think most people would dive for the floor or draw a blade, but they might ask what she was doing if they could observe it. Why do I like the ability to have people consider that unusual? Because I just found out about that fact, and having that be a part of a conversation or roleplay piece is rather delightful to me.