A Witch in my game just used this spell tonight, so it caught my attention. Adding to you point about 'linguistic/auditory', the spell doesn't even have a Verbal component, so it can be cast entirely through a sharp gesture.
I don't think the question of whether the target knows is necessarily the right question. Strictly speaking, in order to identify and know how the spell actually works to any degree of specificity would be a DC 20 (trained) Recall Knowledge check for any of the four magic skills, however there are degrees of the target learning about the spell before that.
I don't necessarily know the answer but how I feel makes sense can be broken down as follows.
1) Witch casts the spell on foe. At this point the foe has no idea what manner of sorcery was just used on them, only that it didn't hurt immediately. If they are trained in magic lore they may try to identify the spell or they may simply carry on the fight.
2) The target happens to use a hostile action against the forbidden creature and immediately take a sharp jolt of mental pain. Immediately they learn that trying to harm this creature hurts, regardless of intelligence level (excepting immunity to mental I suppose). At this point they don't know that attacking again will also hurt, but unless they are profoundly stupid, they will at least suspect (once bitten twice shy sort of deal)
3) The target performs hostility on the target another time for whatever reason and immediately takes another sharp spike to the brain. I think it is at this point that they 'know' that they will be hurt every time they attempt to attack the named creature, but at minimum they had a reasonable guess after the first time, whether they understand why or not. If the witch calls out in a language the target understands, cackling that they will suffer if they strike (or any other hostile action) their comrade, perhaps sooner.
Another interesting question: At what point does the target realise that the Witch is the cause of their pain? A creature of animal intelligence I would assume never. A creature of 'low' intelligence (for whatever value you ascribe) will probably make the connection and gather that they have been bewitched if this is the only mystery spell hurled at them before they trigger it (even if they don't understand how or what).
Actually, another more pressing question as I look at the description... when does the target roll the basic Will save? When the spell is cast (setting the damage for all future instances of damage while the duration lasts) or each time the spell would deal damage?
I disagree that the effect is extremely subtle at least as far as the taking damage goes. If attacking a specific target felt like a spike being driven into my brain every time I did it, I'd learn pretty quickly that it hurts to target that creature. 2 damage/level isn't a huge amount in the grand scheme, but mind you at 1st level that's enough damage to flat-out kill a goblin warrior in one round with three attacks.
If it were in the middle of a massive melee perhaps I could see the target losing track of which creature causes it pain immediately on acting hostile toward, or if the named creature were part of a massive AoE. Otherwise, my original summary seems to stand: the target doesn't know anything until it tries to attack/intimidate/anything hostile toward the named creature, whereupon it immediately suffers a stab to the brain. At this point it doesn't necessarily know what happened but it can at minimum draw the conclusion that attacking X creature caused it pain, and if it does so again, it can confirm this hypothesis.
|
Creatures usually know what conditions they have, though, and this is kind of like that.
It kinda seems like the point of the spell is to discourage the enemy from attacking that person, and that doesn't work if they don't know the effect. It might just ask the Witch player which way they want it to work.
So the question is would you as a player get mad at a GM for not letting you know if you were under the effect of a spell. IE he secretly rolled your save and didn't tell you you had failed it or the source?
I think that the target knows a spell has been cast on it and that it tryed to resist the spell and failed. Afterwards when it trys to attack and takes damage from doing so it can quickly surmise that's what this spell I failed the save for does. Esp after the second attack gives the same result.
I'd say depends. I'd have him act "normally" for his first strike ie he's not gonna change targets cause the spell was cast on him. For his second attack if there is another "convenient" target I'd have him target it instead but if there wasn't ie he'd have to move ect he would go for the same target getting mentally stabbed again which confirms the earlier hypothesis. Then it's all about is it worth switching targets due to the dmg or is this my best target so I'm gonna have to suck it up.
Umm has anyone actually read the spell description:
"A long, jagged needle jabs into the target foe's psyche whenever it tries to attack a specifically forbidden creature. Name yourself or one of your allies. The target takes 2 mental damage any time it uses a hostile action against the named creature."
So I'd say there is a "Long jagged needle" floating over the target of the spell that jabbs him when he attacks the protected person. So no ambiguity at all it's obvious.
Umm has anyone actually read the spell description:
"A long, jagged needle jabs into the target foe's psyche whenever it tries to attack a specifically forbidden creature. Name yourself or one of your allies. The target takes 2 mental damage any time it uses a hostile action against the named creature."
So I'd say there is a "Long jagged needle" floating over the target of the spell that jabbs him when he attacks the protected person. So no ambiguity at all it's obvious.
That means that he has a needle inside his "soul", i imagine that's hard to see.
and the ambiguity (at least for me) is mostly focused on if the target can tell (without spell identification rolls and such) that this damage he suffers happens when he attacks a specific target or anyone (until obviously he tries to atack someone else and he sees that he takes no damage)
Then why the description? Why not say he is wracked with mental anguish or that the effort of fighting the compulsion to not attack is doing the damage? There are all kinds of spells that do mental damage in particular illusions why would this be any different. Think of like Psylock with her "mental" sword or knife except it's floating above the victim.
Unless the person they cast it on knows the spell, I usually play it that the first hit is required for them to know what is going on. Once they experience the pain of attacking someone, they might want to choose another target. Then I decide if their intelligence would allow them to think this far through and if they would choose another target on the basis of the pain. An angry animal may just keep attacking the target thinking they are causing the pain and wanting to kill them for doing so. An intelligent being may know the target is warded and choose a new target.
This is one of those spells the DM has to think about a little.
|
|
It's not a very good ward if it encourages attacking the protected character.
That's why I said I'd ask the player how they saw it working, since it could go either way: Are you trying to predict what enemies will do for damage, or are you trying to protect someone? If the goal is protection, it works best if it's never triggered because it successfully discouraged the unwanted behavior.