I'm currently building my first Starfinder character, and I'm thinking of an overlord-connection mystic who works in corporate espionage.
Now, on page 330 of the Core Rulebook, the text states, "A cast spell always has obvious effects that are noticeable by nearby creatures; it
is not possible to clandestinely cast a spell."
So, clearly it's impossible to conceal the act of casting a spell, but once the spell has been cast, are the effects noticeable?
If this is the case, then spells like invisibility and disguise self are self-defeating, but what about spells like detect thoughts or zone of truth?
While these spells are in effect do they have "obvious effects that are noticeable by nearby creatures"?
After casting detect thoughts in the empty break room, will my corporate spy have a visible halo of psychic energy pulsing around his head as he maintains concentration on the spell while strolling through the office?
Envoys have the optional Talent "Keen Observer".
Whenever you interact with a creature under a mental effect for at least 1 minute, the GM attempts an automatic secret Sense Motive check for you without your expertise die. On a success, you learn about the mental effect. If you specifically request a Sense Motive check to sense mental effects, you can attempt a Sense Motive check as normal, including your expertise die, in addition to this automatic check.
Now I reference this because of the implication even a non-magic person can recognize something like a charm. Something like Detect Thoughts as per your example, the person you're reading the mind of knows they're under the effect of a spell, though presumably other people wouldn't technically know if they do not tell them.
Detect Magic or another way of viewing auras would be able to see you're casting (or maintaining) a spell, as well as a Mysticism skill check. Feats that conceal casting are no longer present in Starfinder where they were in Pathfinder so as the caster, anyone who could viably know what you're doing could figure it out easy enough.
Thank you for bringing up keen observer as that led me to look at the rules for Sense Motive more closely, which somewhat answered my question.
So, when it comes to mind-affecting spells, it seems like it would take a Sense Motive check after 1 minute of interaction for somebody to know that something is up (with the envoy ability seeming to be a specialization in the more general use of the DC 25 Sense Motive check that all characters can perform).
A person affected by hold person may be obviously paralyzed to an onlooker, but that paralysis isn't accompanied by visible glowing chains of force or anything like that (though the ongoing duration of the effect would mean that it could be detected with detect magic).
Because Sense Motive specifically calls out the detection of a mental effect on somebody as something that requires a DC 25 check after 1 minute of interaction, we must assume that these effects aren't immediately noticeable after the spell has already been cast. (That is, it's only the casting of the spell that's obvious and immediately noticeable.)
Is that right?
That sounds accurate, yes.
I think you can notice that someone is charmed or dominated, but I don't think that the rule as quoted would apply to something like telling someone is reading your thoughts.
I think you can notice that someone is charmed or dominated, but I don't think that the rule as quoted would apply to something like telling someone is reading your thoughts.
Whenever a creature attempts a saving throw, they're aware something is trying to affect them, whether it's an active dodge (reflex) their body fighting an affliction (fort) or their mind warding from intrusion (will). Without some magic training it can be difficult to determine what exactly (Mysticism check to determine what a spell is) is effecting you, but you are aware something tried or is trying.
I think you can notice that someone is charmed or dominated, but I don't think that the rule as quoted would apply to something like telling someone is reading your thoughts.Whenever a creature attempts a saving throw, they're aware something is trying to affect them, whether it's an active dodge (reflex) their body fighting an affliction (fort) or their mind warding from intrusion (will). Without some magic training it can be difficult to determine what exactly (Mysticism check to determine what a spell is) is effecting you, but you are aware something tried or is trying.
Can you quote the rule for that? I was aware of such a rule in Pathfinder (at least, in regards to spells with no obvious visual effect), but I've not yet been able to find any simialr rule in Starfinder.
Can you quote the rule for that? I was aware of such a rule in Pathfinder (at least, in regards to spells with no obvious visual effect), but I've not yet been able to find any simialr rule in Starfinder.I think you can notice that someone is charmed or dominated, but I don't think that the rule as quoted would apply to something like telling someone is reading your thoughts.Whenever a creature attempts a saving throw, they're aware something is trying to affect them, whether it's an active dodge (reflex) their body fighting an affliction (fort) or their mind warding from intrusion (will). Without some magic training it can be difficult to determine what exactly (Mysticism check to determine what a spell is) is effecting you, but you are aware something tried or is trying.
Many such things are unfortunately missing, or like grenades exploding Paizo seemed to believe were common sense without an FAQ.
Tell a player though to roll a saving throw, after which try to justify as the GM that "it was nothing". The common sense if you're not enchanted is either "ow, that hurt" or "something I cannot see just tried something". If you wanted to make a case for the opposite, there are specific abilities that require the GM to roll in secret, such as the envoy Sense Motive case above. Saving Throws carry no such wording, including for divination spells.
Now this does not completely gimp such spells, looking back on Detect Thoughts, its first two rounds do not require any saves, being able to skim everyone within the radius, it's only when you focus onto the single target that they get the save and are thus aware of the probe.
It is one of the few spells without an obvious effect like damage, so much like grenades it would not make sense to add an entire clause in concerning it when it only effects the minority. However, I could always be wrong and it could later be clarified via an FAQ.
I'm still not seeing a rule that says they become aware. Sounds like you're projecting from older editions.
GM asks my friends and I to make saves without explanation all the time and we don't ask for justification.
I'm not saying the GM needs to give justification, specify a source exactly, etc. But when it's asked "roll a will save", there's an automatic amount of information that's conveyed in just that statement. That you are the target of an ability which goes against your Will save. Additionally more information is gained if the player is say, an Android with a bonus +2 against mind-effecting, this would make them aware they made a save against some sort of assault on their mind.
It doesn't need to be outright said, the player simply knows, and Starfinder and most tabletops are games where as many people on the forums say "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". That kind of knowledge goes both ways.
For this reason, I imagine Paizo would label such a thing as "common sense", and there's proofing they made a number of such decisions with the grenade FAQ. For whatever reason some people think the opposite, and perhaps it will be addressed.
Until then, I'll bring up the Charm description from CRB pg 269:
A charm effect changes how the subject views you. This gives you the ability to befriend and suggest courses of action to another creature, but its servitude is not absolute or mindless. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.
A charmed creature retains its original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that it now regards the person who charmed it as a dear friend and gives great weight to that character’s suggestions and directions. A charmed creature does not volunteer information or tactics that its master doesn’t ask for. A charmed creature never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to it.
A creature fights friends it had before being charmed only if they threaten its new friend. Even then, it uses the least lethal means at its disposal, for it wishes to resolve the conflict without causing real harm.
A charmed creature can attempt an opposed Charisma check against its master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make it do something it wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If it succeeds at this check, it decides not to go along with that particular order but remains charmed. If the creature’s master commands it to perform an action that the creature would be vehemently opposed to, it can attempt a new saving throw to break free of its master’s influence altogether.
If a charmed creature is openly attacked by the character who charmed it or by that character’s apparent allies, it is automatically freed of the spell or effect.
Now reading that through, there are a number of things missing that Pathfinder had prior. Namely in question a clause claiming that at the end of a charm effect, the target knows it was charmed. Likely because if they can actively fight the control it's common sense they would know. If it were the opposite, there would be a clause specifically stating that a target has no memory of being charmed.
So building off of that, if making a save at all automatically informs the person making it they are the target of an effect, Starfinder asks specifically for the GM to make certain rolls in secret (see the Envoy's Keen Observer example above), and certain aspects we can rule under common sense such as the aftermath of a charm or that grenades go boom, then it makes the most sense that you know when you're the target of the effect of a save, without it needing to be expressly said. If it is not, then like many other things in the Starfinder CRB, it needs to be addressed in a future FAQ.
Until then, I feel I have been able to present enough evidence to support my stance on this. If you would like to raise counter-evidence rather than simply continuing to be contrarian I welcome it. I am not infallible, I am forced to work within the confines Paizo has presented, and I am only human. I may have missed or overlooked minor details.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is all I could find to address your point, Ravingdork:
If you succeed at a saving throw against an effect that has no obvious physical indications, you feel a hostile force or a warning tingle but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature specifically targeted by one of your effects succeeds at its saving throw, you can generally tell that the creature has succeeded. You do not sense when creatures succeed at saves against effects you create that don’t target a single creature.
That being said, a creature that fails its save is conversely unaware, as far as I can tell.
This is all I could find to address your point, Ravingdork:
If you succeed at a saving throw against an effect that has no obvious physical indications, you feel a hostile force or a warning tingle but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature specifically targeted by one of your effects succeeds at its saving throw, you can generally tell that the creature has succeeded. You do not sense when creatures succeed at saves against effects you create that don’t target a single creature.That being said, a creature that fails its save is conversely unaware, as far as I can tell.
There we go, something I overlooked.
And as there's a clause about obvious physical indications (so pain or damage would be obvious, others could sense motive a shift in attitude etc.) I agree with your conclusion that creatures likely wouldn't immediately notice a failed save for a non-obvious spell. Players would, but it would be metagaming for the other players to act on it without first figuring it out.
Isaac, I was referring to characters, not players. Though the players would absolutely understand they were assaulted, it may not be so obvious to the characters themselves.
Thank you for the clarification, Mikael. That does clear up quite a bit.
Isaac, I was referring to characters, not players. Though the players would absolutely understand they were assaulted, it may not be so obvious to the characters themselves.
A statement I agree with (and have had trouble expressing to my players in the past. Particularly when they decide to split up and try to know what each other find real time, which is a moot point in Starfinder with Comms).
My frustration comes from two things. The first is that the burden of proof is on the one trying to argue the contrary, the prosecution, or in this case yourself as I was the one defending the status quo. The second is that you cannot prove a negative, something which you were insistent to ask of me rather than try to find evidence which it turned out I had overlooked, though it supported my side of the arguement anyway (which I also laugh a little at because I was up and down that section of the book a few times trying to follow down the Charm Person rabbit hole due to its missing clauses, I clearly either missed it or read it and failed to understand which speaks a lot of me but perhaps more of the Starfinder Core Rulebook).
We are still left with one quandary though, without an explicitly clear answer. Do you know you were effected after the fact on a failed save. My current ruling would be on a case by case bases. You maintain autonomy during Charm spells so I would assume you are aware of the things you did after, however Detect Thoughts may be simple and fleeting. Your surface thoughts at that moment were skimmed and then like dust on the wind the intruder left without trace (save a lingering magical aura detectable by special means).
Speaking of, to finally return to the OP, the idea of a magical espionage has an interesting additional factor which makes it easier and harder? Magic can be used through computers, so if you had a miniature computer able to cast spells that you could plant on someone you could use it to make it you wouldn't even need to be walking the hall yourself during your concentration. On the counter-side though, it's likely that higher up companies may have Detect Magic through their security systems, or some other tech forms of aura sight.
My frustration comes from two things. The first is that the burden of proof is on the one trying to argue the contrary, the prosecution, or in this case yourself as I was the one defending the status quo. The second is that you cannot prove a negative, something which you were insistent to ask of me rather than try to find evidence which it turned out I had overlooked, though it supported my side of the argument anyway...
Just to be clear, I did try to find the evidence. I spent no less than 10 minutes looking through the magic and spells section, and combat chapter, of the book prior to making my post.
Only after failing to find the rule reprinted from older editions did I post my thoughts on the matter.
I simply overlooked it is all.
My frustration comes from two things. The first is that the burden of proof is on the one trying to argue the contrary, the prosecution, or in this case yourself as I was the one defending the status quo. The second is that you cannot prove a negative, something which you were insistent to ask of me rather than try to find evidence which it turned out I had overlooked, though it supported my side of the argument anyway...Just to be clear, I did try to find the evidence. I spent no less than 10 minutes looking through the magic and spells section, and combat chapter, of the book prior to making my post.
Only after failing to find the rule reprinted from older editions did I post my thoughts on the matter.
I simply overlooked it is all.
As did I. It happens, no major harm done.