Socially acceptable use of magic in PFS social settings?


Pathfinder Society

401 to 450 of 637 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ryan Blomquist wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:

I see that part, Jiggy. What I'm trying to figure out is how they discern if it is a hostile action. The section you pointed me to has the guards already believing that the spell in question is non-hostile.

Really liking the dialog going on here. Pleasantly productive!

From reading Jiggy's post, my guess is they're using their Spellcraft skill if they possess it and if not they're using the Sense Motive skill to get a "hunch" about the situation; failing that, it sounds like they're letting the spell happen unless there's a clear bead of fire or some other obvious, visible indicator of hostilities. Jiggy - am I close?

In the case of a guard, whose job is to be suspicious of people trying to get past them, they're an exception to "if you don't seem hostile, let it go".

You ask the guard to let you through, they say no, you reach for your spell component pouch? Even if they honestly think you're fine, they'll still at least point to your hand with an "Ah-ah-ah! None of that, now!" Just like suddenly reaching into a deep pocket, or any number of other things you shouldn't do at airport security.

Though the structuring of my sentences earlier may not have made it clear, I was listing guards as an exception to my proposed norm of "no initial reaction unless you seem hostile".

5/5 5/5 ***

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

In the case of a guard, whose job is to be suspicious of people trying to get past them, they're an exception to "if you don't seem hostile, let it go".

You ask the guard to let you through, they say no, you reach for your spell component pouch? Even if they honestly think you're fine, they'll still at least point to your hand with an "Ah-ah-ah! None of that, now!" Just like suddenly reaching into a deep pocket, or any number of other things you shouldn't do at airport security.

Though the structuring of my sentences earlier may not have made it clear, I was listing guards as an exception to my proposed norm of "no initial reaction unless you seem hostile".

Right, I'm not terribly concerned with the guard. They have to be suspicious. In your first post, you wrote:

Jiggy wrote:
If a PC casts a spell in front of an NPC, the first question is this: are they initiating hostilities? (In this case, "hostilities" includes anything the NPC might clearly not want, including charms.)

This is where I struggle; if the NPC has no way to determine the specific spell, either Spellcraft or Knowledge (arcana), are they defaulting to the Sense Motive skill's hunch? Above, it looks like yes. If so, what happens when an NPC fails the check?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Hm, LazarX hasn't commented in a while.

When there's nothing new for me to say, there isn't any point.

But on a recent set of posts I'd say this. You can't use Sense Motive on a form of communication you can't understand. If you can identify that say a spellcaster cast a "Remove Curse", or a cure spell, I'd allow a sense motive roll to get a hint if he was sincerely altruistic in his motives... if the player asks for one. However a spell that's totally not identified, does not leave you a basis for a sense motive check. If you don't know what the person has done, then you can't try to figure out a motive behind it.

If you're trying to bluff a spellcast, that would be a reason for an opposed sense motive vs. bluff check.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Ryan Blomquist wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

In the case of a guard, whose job is to be suspicious of people trying to get past them, they're an exception to "if you don't seem hostile, let it go".

You ask the guard to let you through, they say no, you reach for your spell component pouch? Even if they honestly think you're fine, they'll still at least point to your hand with an "Ah-ah-ah! None of that, now!" Just like suddenly reaching into a deep pocket, or any number of other things you shouldn't do at airport security.

Though the structuring of my sentences earlier may not have made it clear, I was listing guards as an exception to my proposed norm of "no initial reaction unless you seem hostile".

Right, I'm not terribly concerned with the guard. They have to be suspicious. In your first post, you wrote:

Jiggy wrote:
If a PC casts a spell in front of an NPC, the first question is this: are they initiating hostilities? (In this case, "hostilities" includes anything the NPC might clearly not want, including charms.)
This is where I struggle; if the NPC has no way to determine the specific spell, either Spellcraft or Knowledge (arcana), are they defaulting to the Sense Motive skill's hunch? Above, it looks like yes. If so, what happens when an NPC fails the check?

Then you make a DM judgment call based on the circumstances.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ryan Blomquist wrote:
Right, I'm not terribly concerned with the guard. They have to be suspicious.

Ah, okay, I misunderstood you then. My bad.

Ryan Blomquist wrote:

In your first post, you wrote:

Jiggy wrote:
If a PC casts a spell in front of an NPC, the first question is this: are they initiating hostilities? (In this case, "hostilities" includes anything the NPC might clearly not want, including charms.)
This is where I struggle; if the NPC has no way to determine the specific spell, either Spellcraft or Knowledge (arcana), are they defaulting to the Sense Motive skill's hunch? Above, it looks like yes. If so, what happens when an NPC fails the check?

If the PC is taking a "hostile"/"offensive"/etc action, then we're going into initiative. Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not the action in question is magical; I'm a firm believer that if you're taking a combat action, you have to roll initiative first, and someone who realizes what you're about to do has the chance to be quicker on the draw.

In the specific case of spellcasting as that initiative-starting action, the NPC gets a Sense Motive check before the spell actually gets cast to realize the offensive intent. This would be DC 20 (with any appropriate modifiers for the situation), unless the PC wants to use Bluff, in which case we go that route.

Success means they get to act in the surprise round (or that we don't have a surprise round, depending on if everyone made their check). Failure means the PC gets a surprise round in which to cast their spell (which in turn *might* mean we don't bother with initiative).

Basically, if the PCs initiate hostilities with a spell, Sense Motive tells us if they manage to surprise the NPC or not.

But all that goes out the window if the PCs aren't actually initiating hostilities (like if they're casting guidance before asking a favor or something). Then we go down a different route, as described in my earlier post.

...Does that clear anything up at all?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

LazarX wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Hm, LazarX hasn't commented in a while.

When there's nothing new for me to say, there isn't any point.

But on a recent set of posts I'd say this. You can't use Sense Motive on a form of communication you can't understand. If you can identify that say a spellcaster cast a "Remove Curse", or a cure spell, I'd allow a sense motive roll to get a hint if he was sincerely altruistic in his motives... if the player asks for one. However a spell that's totally not identified, does not leave you a basis for a sense motive check. If you don't know what the person has done, then you can't try to figure out a motive behind it.

If you're trying to bluff a spellcast, that would be a reason for an opposed sense motive vs. bluff check.

Casting a spell that the observer cannot identify does not magically obscure your motives. When you attempt to sense someone's motive you are making observations on a plethora of things you may not even be consciously aware of. Body language, demeanor, emotional state, verbal timbre, appearance of perspiration, eye contact, blinking rate, even eye dilatation and other minutia can all give the observer information he can used to determine intent of the observed person. Casting a spell does not suddenly make all of these "tells" non-existent. If the person you are observing is hostile in intent, the fact that he is casting Fireball as a result of that intent does not change your ability to identify that intent and act accordingly. Knowing that he is casting Fireball, though, would likely greatly aid you in identifying his intent.

Sczarni 2/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

So in a typical party of four PFS agents, we should hope that one of them has Spellcraft (Identify Spell: DC 15+spell level), K: Arcana (Identify Spell Cast At You: DC 25+spell level; Spell Effect in Place Once Cast DC 20+spell level), or Sense Motive (Hunch DC 20)that should reliably allow them to hold back the 8 Wisdom fighter who can't tell a hostile fireball from a non-hostile detect magic and charges the poor lizardman shaman.

That sounds great, even though these are some high DC's. This should help mitigate the problem of PCs killing non-hostile casters.

But it also means the average commoner (untrained, Sense Motive +0) is only going to have a 5% chance of recognizing a benign caster as not trying to actively kill them. So as to the question of casting a spell in order to influence an NPC, these are some low odds of success.

Will 19/20 commoners really attack you for casting a non-hostile spell without warning?

Scarab Sages 4/5

+1 Sense Motive

Woefully under-used skill by most in social situations. Also a great tool for the GM when used by the player, situational bonuses can make the difficulty change significantly. We use it constantly in accessing the people around us, even when we don't know it (which is related to the questions below). Don't forget though you can get the wrong impression as well. Didn't someone equate Sense Motive to Perception for social encounters?

Not intended as a derail, but would social encounters preclude the use of Take 10 for Sense Motive, or would social encounters be treated equivalent to being "distracted"?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

LazarX wrote:
But on a recent set of posts I'd say this. You can't use Sense Motive on a form of communication you can't understand. If you can identify that say a spellcaster cast a "Remove Curse", or a cure spell, I'd allow a sense motive roll to get a hint if he was sincerely altruistic in his motives... if the player asks for one. However a spell that's totally not identified, does not leave you a basis for a sense motive check. If you don't know what the person has done, then you can't try to figure out a motive behind it.

You speak as though Sense Motive's only function were to assess the truth or falsehood of a direct statement. That's not the case, as I referenced somewhere else on this page.

As for using it when someone casts a spell you didn't identify, to suggest it wouldn't work is ludicrous.

If two people react to their food tasting bad, and the first just makes a little bit of a face and then calmly casts a spell while focusing his attention on his food, but the second guy spits it back onto his plate before standing red-faced and loudly casting a spell in the direction of the nearest waiter; Sense Motive represents being able to tell that the first guy was mildly displeased and intends to use magic to adjust his meal and that the second guy is royally pissed and it's about to get ugly.

You don't need a Spellcraft ID of the spells to be able to tell the difference between those two people. You use Sense Motive.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Arkos wrote:
But it also means the average commoner (untrained, Sense Motive +0) is only going to have a 5% chance of recognizing a benign caster as not trying to actively kill them.

Alternatively, it instead means they only have a 5% chance of recognizing a hostile caster is trying to kill them. (Unless of course said caster is already clearly identified as a threat.)

Why, that's almost like in the movies where one guy in the crowd realizes that someone's about to pull something and yells "Get down!" to the masses but they all die anyway.

Basically, people continue to assume you are what they already thought you were, unless something obviously changes or they make their Sense Motive check. If they thought you were unimportant/not a threat, they'll continue to think so unless they make the check or until your actions speak for themselves.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Jiggy, I hate to bring it up again, because I feel like I'm not managing to make my thoughts clear.

You have two decision trees, one for hostile intent and one for benign intent. I really like the trees, they seem to be reasonable. What I am trying to figure out is how your average commoner is going to tell the difference between the two? How do we end up in one tree or the other?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Lazarx you can try to determine if the caster means harm or not.

Ryan I'd say its circumstantial. If the NPC can't figure out intent, then a GM has to use their best judgment on how opposed the NPC would be to casting in his vicinity.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
How do we end up in one tree or the other?

By what's actually happening, not by what the NPC perceives.

If the PC's action really is hostile, we WILL be initiating combat rounds, regardless of whether the NPC knows the nature of the action. The Sense Motive check just tells us whether or not the PC gets a surprise round.

If the PC's action truly is NOT hostile, then we check whether the NPC would treat it as potentially hostile/inappropriate anyway (guards/airport security, paranoid people, social taboo, etc). But if no such condition exists, then the spell goes off without initiative, and NPCs react to the results as appropriate.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Jiggy, I hate to bring it up again, because I feel like I'm not managing to make my thoughts clear.

You have two decision trees, one for hostile intent and one for benign intent. I really like the trees, they seem to be reasonable. What I am trying to figure out is how your average commoner is going to tell the difference between the two? How do we end up in one tree or the other?

What the player is actually doing.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Jiggy, I hate to bring it up again, because I feel like I'm not managing to make my thoughts clear.

You have two decision trees, one for hostile intent and one for benign intent. I really like the trees, they seem to be reasonable. What I am trying to figure out is how your average commoner is going to tell the difference between the two? How do we end up in one tree or the other?

If you are in a room full of unfamiliar people and you want to tell a joke, how do you know that someone won't get offended and punch you in the face? Jokes have both the ability to do good (make people laugh and feel comfortable) and harm (make people feel bad and uncomfortable). The same goes with spells, except spells have a much greater ability to do both harm and good. Thus the odds of someone who doesn't know what you are doing taking a hostile action are increased accordingly. Even if they aren't openly hostile it could still affect their attitude. Their reaction is entirely a DM judgment. But the PC should always be aware of the potential social risk of this sort of behavior.

My personal take is that the etiquette of casting a spell in front of someone in a magic heavy society would be that it is, at the very least, rude to do so without first stating your intent and asking permission, and in some situations would even be illegal (such as in front of royalty).

Silver Crusade 2/5

Thank you, I think I've got it now. I'm pretty satisfied on how that works.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The funny thing is... there's no mechanic for telling the truth.
Core Rulebook, Skills chapter, Sense Motive wrote:


Task | Sense Motive DC
Hunch | 20

....

Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another's behavior that something is wrong, such as when you're talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.

(Bolding mine.)

I'm aware of that, the problem is its not active truth telling. It depends entirely on the recipient, its not something YOU can do.

Since most people don't have a skill modifier over 10, you're looking at at least a 50% chance of having your intentions not understood and there's nothing you can do about it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Well, that raises an interesting point. You can use bluff to convince someone of a fact or convince them of your intent. Does the bluff *have* to be a lie?

(Personally, I would allow you to use diplomacy to "Aid Anouther" the person trying to sense motive on you, but thats as far as I can see the rules as written letting it go.)

Sczarni 2/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Jiggy wrote:
If nothing else, this thread has made me think a lot about how *I* will be handling public spellcasting in the future. I think this is about where I'm at right now (feedback appreciated). Note that this is all before applying any regional caveats or whatever.

I like this. I like it specifically because it implies that casting light is just like turning on a light switch. Is someone sitting in the dark that prefers the darkness, or are the lights already on? Does someone have a migraine? No? Great. Then no one minds and we move on. Plus, we can all see.

Regional caveats aside, this still implies that the baseline is "if the magic doesn't affect me, and isn't used in a hostile way, then everything is fine, even if I don't understand what just happened except that magic was cast."

This is very different than earlier in the the thread where casting a spell without warning would immediately lead to an initiative roll, and it certainly implies that unknown magic is not to be feared unless it is hostile. In these terms, Golarion is a very magic friendly world.

This is the Golarion I'd like to play PFS in, though I don't expect full agreement from this thread!

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

I would definitely say you should be using Diplomacy to convince people you are (honestly) attempting to do them no harm. I might even say it would be fair that, if you cast an unknown spell in front of people who don't know you well, then if they fail their DC 20 Sense Motive check to verify you are trustworthy, then their attitude would automatically shift one category worse unless you succeed in a Diplomacy check to avoid this. If you don't bother to use Diplomacy to do this, it would be an automatically failed check.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

I think perhaps a more apt analogy to Spellcasting in our current society might be chemistry.

I am in a room full of people and someone I don't know breaks out a case of chemicals and starts mixing them. He makes no statement about his actions and I fail to sense his "intent." I, as a laymen with no skill points in Knowledge (chemistry), know enough about chemistry (DC 10) to know that what he is concocting could explode or release a deadly poison, or it could create an entertaining show or make the room smell better, or it could have no observable effect at all. But I have no ability to determine this. How would I react? I think at the very least I would be suspicious of his behavior (especially since he made no attempt to explain it ahead of time) and I might even confront him on it.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

trollbill wrote:
if they fail their DC 20 Sense Motive check to verify you are trustworthy

Why is there a check to verify you're trustworthy? Why would they default to thinking you're NOT trustworthy unless a successful check intervenes to tell them that their original assessment of you still holds? Why is it not the other way around, with them defaulting to regarding you exactly the same way they regarded you ten seconds ago unless a check intervenes to prompt them to change their minds?

By requiring a check to keep people from worsening their attitudes toward a caster, you show your belief that spellcasting is something inherently unlikable, whose social consequences are by default negative unless you're rescued by a d20 roll.

Sorry, but that's not the Golarion I'm familiar with.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arkos wrote:


I like this. I like it specifically because it implies that casting light is just like turning on a light switch.

I don't see how logically. For a wizard to cast a light spell, he's undergone years of apprenticeship, study, and grunt labor in order to cast that cantrip.

However any reject cast from Animal House because he was too stupid even for them, can flip a switch, once he's shown how.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Jiggy wrote:
trollbill wrote:
if they fail their DC 20 Sense Motive check to verify you are trustworthy

Why is there a check to verify you're trustworthy? Why would they default to thinking you're NOT trustworthy unless a successful check intervenes to tell them that their original assessment of you still holds? Why is it not the other way around, with them defaulting to regarding you exactly the same way they regarded you ten seconds ago unless a check intervenes to prompt them to change their minds?

By requiring a check to keep people from worsening their attitudes toward a caster, you show your belief that spellcasting is something inherently unlikable, whose social consequences are by default negative unless you're rescued by a d20 roll.

Sorry, but that's not the Golarion I'm familiar with.

Depends. If its personal guards for a noble, distrust will be the MO.

If its a merchant trying to sell you something like one of Cledwyn's hot cakes, probably trust is where he starts.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jiggy wrote:
Why is there a check to verify you're trustworthy? Why would they default to thinking you're NOT trustworthy unless a successful check intervenes to tell them that their original assessment of you still holds?

The murder hobo label isn't QUITE as bad in game as it is around the table... but not by much.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
I think it ludicrous to argue that randomly casting a spell at a stranger wouldn't elicit some form of negative response. The argument then becomes more ridiculous when you insinuate that the GM is cheating in PFS because the spell doesn't indicate that tge act of casting in a strangers face might be viewed as hostile.

Andrew,

You repeatedly make efforts misrepresent my position as opposed to trying to understand and address the core issue. Here's a thought, imagine you have to convince yourself of what your arguing against. Think about how you would go about that and what things support an opposing position.

I think that exercise might help you to approach this from a more objective viewpoint and reduce your propensity to tilt at windmills, so to speak.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

You could try to add to the collective understanding we are deriving at rather than returning to your original point over and over.

It isn't that I don't fully understand your original point. I flatly reject it.

1/5

trollbill wrote:
I remember running a 2nd edition adventure. Back then there was no Spellcraft skill for identifying spells. The adventure called for a Lizardman shaman to approach the party in a non-hostile manner and cast "Tongues" so that he could communicate with the party. I had the shaman step out on the path ahead of the party in a clear manner, he made a show of taking out all of his weapons and plainly laying them at his feet before starting to cast "Tongues." As soon as he started casting, the party attacked.

I love this anecdote. Apart from the obvious irony of it, it underscores a challenge in having this discussion. Let me explain.

I've been to two social events held by the Blakros family

Don't read if you have not been to the Wedding or the HellKnight's Feast:
In both of these events, we were attacked by someone in disguise.

Every time I've played a scenario, guess what happens? A fight breaks out. The cornerstone of D&D and PF is that you are going to encounter deadly conflict at some point. It isn't a question of if, but when and how. So the idea that PC's are attacking creatures at the first signs of something that could be a hostile act, is the function of how the game is presented to the players. Diplomat and Ambassador are not Classes or even Prestige Classes. It's Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin. It shouldn't be a shock that most players first reaction is to kill. As you already agreed, it is not a framework on which to judge NPC actions.

Given all the fighting and hostility PC's encounter, I can understand why several people feel spell use is a weapon. As I've stated before, we aren't playing Farmers & Crops or Society & Fashion. But those things still exist in the world of Golarion. The NPCs would be the primary players in those games.

As I've stated, there's little financial incentive for Paizo to flesh out all the magic that exist if it isn't going to be useful to the role of the PC and interesting to the player. I think it's that lack of content that can skew perceptions about what magic NPC's would really be exposed to. And that's ignoring the validity of the cottage industry economic model in PF to begin with.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

You could try to add to the collective understanding we are deriving at rather than returning to your original point over and over.

It isn't that I don't fully understand your original point. I flatly reject it.

The fact that you repeatedly misrepresent it indicates that you do not, in fact, understand my point. When others have pointed that out, you ignore them and insist otherwise.

1/5

LazarX wrote:
Arkos wrote:


I like this. I like it specifically because it implies that casting light is just like turning on a light switch.
I don't see how logically. For a wizard to cast a light spell, he's undergone years of apprenticeship, study, and grunt labor in order to cast that cantrip.

You mean until they allowed multi-classing with no restrictions? How long does it take that 11 INT barbarian to become a 1st level Wizard after he trains up?

1/5

Arkos wrote:

Regional caveats aside, this still implies that the baseline is "if the magic doesn't affect me, and isn't used in a hostile way, then everything is fine, even if I don't understand what just happened except that magic was cast."

In these terms, Golarion is a very magic friendly world.

Question #1 in the OP is aimed at getting PFS people to clarify this. But I would modify your last sentence and say not that PFS has to be magic "friendly" but that magic is accepted as a part of every day life, that people are indifferent to magic as a tool. As in our society, it is the intent and the action that determines the reaction.

Like the Old West, carrying a gun on your hip does not cause young mothers to clutch their children in fear. When you walk into a party with a gun on your waist, everyone isn't making for the exits. Why? Because societal ethos prohibits anyone from harming each other in that setting. Regardless of the tools at their disposal, people expect everyone to behave appropriate for the setting. Magic doesn't just explode for no reason so there's no fear of it in and of itself. There will always be fear of individuals who intend harm.

But as you state, this is based on an acceptance of magic use as a daily part of life, something that hasn't been made clear in PFS.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Very interesting discussion. My two cents - I think the key component is the mood of the NPC. Let's say you are talking to an NPC and suddenly start casting a spell (or a party member in the conversation does the same).

Is the NPC friendly or helpful? He's probably going to wait and see what the effect of spell is before reacting - he trusts you mean him no immediate harm, and expects you will explain yourself momentarily.

An unfriendly or hostile person is likely to attack or run away. She most likely assumes your spell is meant to harm or be lethal, and needs to take immediate action.

Indifferent? Tougher call. Patience or hostility will be very circumstantial. May depend on prior interaction or reputation. Maybe he does something non harmful and tries to catch your arm to interrupt the casting so he can ask what your doing.

I'll bet some of you are thinking - who in their right mind stops in mid conversation and starts spellcasting without warning? It's almost frightening how many times I've seen this in my 30 plus years of gaming. I'm actually struggling to remember a home campaign I ran or played in where this DIDN'T happen at least once. I'm reasonably sure I did it at some point, too. :-)

BTW - have we ever addressed the OP's question about bringing pets and the like into social gatherings? Curious about people's thoughts about a PC druid bringing a velociraptor into Prince Stephan II's ballroom...

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I think the pets is a different topic and deserves a different thread.

But to answer the question: pets in high society functions are not acceptable.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I think that having either the PCs or NPCs start fights every time a spell is cast seems like a poor way to manage scenarios.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

David Bowles wrote:
I think that having either the PCs or NPCs start fights every time a spell is cast seems like a poor way to manage scenarios.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that's how things should work.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Reading through the thread, there was someone talking about lighting someone up with arrows if they saw/heard casting.

That being said, I see best way to roll with this as GM discretion. Of course, I understand the other point of view because of GMs' bad habits of making things GM discretion that aren't supposed to be. At least in my experience.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:

Reading through the thread, there was someone talking about lighting someone up with arrows if they saw/heard casting.

That being said, I see best way to roll with this as GM discretion. Of course, I understand the other point of view because of GMs' bad habits of making things GM discretion that aren't supposed to be. At least in my experience.

Not all GMs have the luxury of 20 or 30 years of experience of both making mistakes and making excellent judgments.

My Wife has 3 scenarios under her belt, but if she were to read all the vitriol aimed at mistakes, she may choose not to try again.

I think expecting the level of excellence that only experience produces from all GMs will only help to push new and learning GMs away.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/55/5

Brett Carlos wrote:
Curious about people's thoughts about a PC druid bringing a velociraptor into Prince Stephan II's ballroom...

Usually my druid insists I wear mistletoe and leaf armor barding and answer to "the druid".

Demeaning title...

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Jiggy wrote:
trollbill wrote:
if they fail their DC 20 Sense Motive check to verify you are trustworthy
Why is there a check to verify you're trustworthy?.

Because that is what the rules that you specifically quoted above say is required to determine if someone is trustworthy.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Conan the Raptor wrote:
Brett Carlos wrote:
Curious about people's thoughts about a PC druid bringing a velociraptor into Prince Stephan II's ballroom...

Usually my druid insists I wear mistletoe and leaf armor barding and answer to "the druid".

Demeaning title...

Apologies, Conan. Did not mean to demean you or your pet druid. I'm certain you and your druid would make a striking duo at any formal event.

:-)

Silver Crusade 2/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

Reading through the thread, there was someone talking about lighting someone up with arrows if they saw/heard casting.

That being said, I see best way to roll with this as GM discretion. Of course, I understand the other point of view because of GMs' bad habits of making things GM discretion that aren't supposed to be. At least in my experience.

Not all GMs have the luxury of 20 or 30 years of experience of both making mistakes and making excellent judgments.

My Wife has 3 scenarios under her belt, but if she were to read all the vitriol aimed at mistakes, she may choose not to try again.

I think expecting the level of excellence that only experience produces from all GMs will only help to push new and learning GMs away.

I ain't talking about new GMs. And you don't need 20 or 30 years of experience to run these scenarios as written. You need to be able to read and not think you know better than the author and the devs. That's a pretty low bar for "excellence".

My statement wasn't "vitriol", it was a neutral statement about understanding the other side of this issue while still disagreeing with it.

In FACT, now that you mention it, I've actually had a lot fewer problems with newer GMs, particularly those who never played 3.5.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

That is a completely different issue. GMs should run as written. Remember though, there is plenty of wiggle room to add your own flavor.

Cyphermage Dilemma:
this scenario is written to start as an investigation but has no Riddleport flavor or Pirate flavor. Adding this flavor and adding a cool one-eyed gnome bartender they can talk to while investigating can make this a truly fantastic experience for the players.

Mainly the rule is to not change the difficulty by adding HP or extra monsters or arbitrarily upping DCs or changing known or prepared spells.

As long as they still make sense and aren't suicidal, tactics should be followed.

But GMs can and in some cases have to interpret the text vs the maps. This interpretation could make things more difficult, or less. This is not breaking a rule. This is doing your vest with limited info.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I usually have NPCs react appropriately to sudden spellcasting and make sure to mention how appropriate such an action would be in the current scene.

Scarab Sages 1/5

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Then there would be no need for high powered assassins to take down targets. All you need is a 6th level sorcerer who knows fireball.

"Hey, I don't know what he's casting, but it can't be bad, right?"
*boom*

And there goes a room of the high and mighty.

Of what podunk country? A single 6d6 (mean 21 - 32 depending on cheese) wont take out the mayor and sherrif of Sandpoont.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Matthew Trent wrote:
Sandpoont

Ooooh, I've never been there! Is it fun?

Sovereign Court 3/5

Sandpoont, the central starting location for the Raise of that Runlord AP, of course! With memorable NPCs like Amayko Kaijatsu and Shalula, the Elven ranger!

Scarab Sages 1/5

Jiggy wrote:
Matthew Trent wrote:
Sandpoont
Ooooh, I've never been there! Is it fun?

Heh. Looks like the autocorrect got that one,,, somehow. Sandpoint was of course intended. You know the most detailed small village in the inner see and not perticularly special.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Since I've read the vast majority of this thread and loving it, so I figured I would attempt to throw my two copper pieces into the mix, just for the sake of giving my opinion.

First, where my brain goes to is how a spell is cast. We can look at each of the spells and the only hint that it gives us is Verbal, Somatic, Material Component, Focus or Divine Focus. Now, my viewpoint may be more influenced by video games and media than others, but I would imagine that each spell has different words/gestures/components. I would say that every spell is going to be cast a little differently, thus where Spellcraft comes into play. You look at someone's movements and listen to their words to determine what spell they are going to be casting, and this leads into the next argument that has been presented. What if someone isn't trained in spellcraft?

This is where I would say that based on what words they are saying and what their movements are, this would influence what direction the NPC is going to interpret this as. I would imagine that a fireball spell would have a bit more violence and references to fire (not to mention the use of bat guano and sulfer) versus someone casting a cure spell (can be argued for worshipers of Sarenrae, but that's a tangent). If you are out shopping in a crowded area, if you watch the crowds, body language gives up a lot about what the person is thinking about, what they are going to do or what they are planning on doing. While most commoners won't be paying attention to subtle body language, I'm sure some town guard will be keeping an eye out for spellcasters and what their intentions are.

How I would play this is going to be completely up to the standard norms of the city the NPCs are in. If it's a high magic city such as Absalom, someone casting probably wouldn't even be given the time or day. If it's a suspicious city (something has recently happened, overall suspicion of a specific group), then guards are probably going to be on a lookout for people casting, will approach the PC in question and ask them to explain their actions/arrest them. If the city is highly suspicious of all magics, then I would say initiative would start as soon as the spell has finished casting as the guards would rush to attack the person or an archer of some sort would have a ready action to shoot and distract any caster.

From a GM viewpoint, if I don't specifically tell my PCs the cities view on spells, I'm going to go with the most lenient viewpoint. If I'm going to restrict the PCs, I'm going to make sure they are aware of this. If they are going into a city that is suspicious, I'm going to have guards tie twine around the weapons of everyone and I'm going to put twine around the caster's index and middle finger. You can do the same effect with gloves or any other idea to tell the casters "Don't cast!" For a highly suspicious town, the guards might just assume anyone wearing robes, carrying a book, staff and/or a material component pouch isn't welcome into the city.

If you would like some good examples of casting in social settings, I've been running the Council of Thieves adventure for my PCs and The Sixfold Trial has a dinner party that specifically references casting in a high profile situation.

The Sixfold Trial, Page 26:
The heroes can use the feast as a way to learn more about the Knot and the Folly, as detailed under “Polite Conversations,” but doubtless your players may come up with unexpected ways to learn more. Note that with the amount of people about the use of spells is difficult, and anyone who is noticed casting spells is asked why he is casting in a house of peace, joy, and love—unless a good excuse is made, such characters face a –2 penalty to all Charisma-based checks for the rest of the evening (this penalty stacks).

TL:DR version: It's all completely bases on the situation, but in my imagination, body language will be the determining factor while a spell is being cast, while after the fact, it's going to be based on the effects afterwards. If you're going to have a situation that the PCs need to know that spellcasting is not welcome, make sure they know about it, just come up with some in game way of telling them.

I'm hoping my viewpoints helps someone else out.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

Ah, all caught up.

Paul Byers wrote:
...and that led to wondering what Jonathan Compton would think about magic use and etiquette.

Just as Mike is not "Mr. Brock," I am not "Jonathan." Just "John" is fine, thanks.

Good times.


Hm, I admit that I don't play in Society, so I wouldn't really be able to weigh in directly on PFS aspects of this discussion, but I think I have a pretty good grasp for the overall nature of the question.

In my experience, it really tends to vary by a) the setting, b) the locale within the setting, and then c) the people you're around. Go deeper you say? Why yes, I think I shall. As I have generally acknowledged, in worlds where magic is less common, obviously casting in public is not only rude, but more often than not it's fear-inducing. Unless you are a known cleric, or are actively healing someone, casting some arcane mumbo-jumbo tends to scuttle the population something fierce. Of course, this is taken a step further, and even magic items tend to be frowned upon or feared.

In worlds where magic is at least somewhat frequent, magic items would probably be accepted by and large overlooked, unless they were potentially violent. I still think that at this stage random casting would be frowned upon, but perhaps if you were to give people some kind of warning, maybe it would be more socially acceptable.

Now, in worlds where magic is very common, I'd wager that casting is by and large accepted, and honestly you won't get a funny look thrown your way until something explodes or dies.

Of course, in all these scenarios, the locality and people around you would ultimately decide it, because even in magic rich worlds you could be in the presence of people who distrust magic and would attack you just for trying. Or you might be in the city of the world's primary mage college, where the commoners are far more used to magic than your average joe.

Now as far as the security and business aspect... maybe my group is unique, but this tends to be fairly common in our games. Heck, a lot of thieves guilds and mage colleges have sensors just to detect if people are wearing items as they come through the door, and anyone who runs anything resembling a "bank" would likely have something similar, if not a mage with goggles of detect magic, maybe even true sight, watching as people came in.

401 to 450 of 637 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Socially acceptable use of magic in PFS social settings? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.