|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any situation where you can't think of anything better, you can always have them run away at full speed. 3 actions going away means it'll take them 3 actions to come back too.
Making attacks against your other enemies is always a solid choice too, especially if you know they have a high level spell or something you'd rather see them spend on your enemies than on you. Super fun if you can get them to point a breath weapon or other effect with a cooldown at enemies instead of you.
For weapon-using enemies, throwing away their weapons (not just dropping - throwing them into the ravine) can be good too.
Having them drop prone is an option. So is making them try to Grab your other enemies. And you can have them jump of a cliff.
Your spell isn't normally Subtle, so people probably know the target is controlled. If you can make it Subtle, you could also try to have your target order the other enemies around.
Just FYI, the restraining thing probably wouldn't work. You could have them start tying themselves up, but they're not going to be able to tie up their own arms and that wouldn't have them count as "restrained", at least not as I would rule. Unfortunately we don't have rules for tying people up in PF2.
I would probably give them the grabbed condition until the rope is removed. Which is still a pretty good use, because I'd rule they need to spend as many actions untying themselves as they spent tying themselves. It's like attempting a grapple, but without you having to continue spending actions or putting yourself in harms way.
Pull the lever, Kronk.
A failed save means that you can control one action of its next turn. You only get all three actions if they critically fail the save - which is not something that you should be relying on for planning your turn around.
With only one action under your control, most forms of serious long lasting detriment are not going to work. It isn't enough actions for any sort of self-restraint or restraint of the enemy's allies. They could grab the manacles that you threw at them, but then they come to their senses and throw them back at you. You can have them grapple their (already adjacent) ally, but then they can free-action release them immediately.
Similarly, anything that involves Stride isn't going to work. The Stride itself would be your commanded action. So 'walk over and hit your ally' doesn't work (that is two actions), though 'Strike at an ally' does work if they are already adjacent. The Stride itself can be valuable to get them out of a good position or into a bad one.
I like the idea Ascalaphus has of 'toss a weapon'.
Is there a drug or some sort of concoction I could deliver to them, have them drink that knocks them out or something similar?
Probably not (I don't actually know all the items, but it seems unlikely). Even if there was...it's a dangerous path to go down. As a GM, I would absolutely use the tactic against you if you started doing it.
To clarify, there are drugs and poisons that will knock someone out (with a save) but also they have an onset time that means they're not useful mid combat.
|
|
It's fairly common in RPGs that drugs have totally unreasonable rules for downsides because it's assumed you're taking them willingly. So they're not balanced with the same kind of caution as poisons.
But using that in combination with a mind control effect is a good reason for the GM to say that that has to be rebalanced to be more in line with other things.
Oh, just thought of a really obvious one. Have them hand over their weapons to you/your allies. Let them try to critically disarm you to get them back.
|
Is it in the rules to speak with the Controlled enemy (whether a free action or even have to spend 1 action to talk) and say something like "This one is the traitor in our ranks!" as it charges its ally to cause further chaos.
Again, your effect is not subtle, and mind control is a known thing. As a DM, that's the start of the iceberg of reasons this wouldn't work.
But let's look at the spell.failure On the target’s next turn, it’s stunned 1 and you partially control it, causing it to take a single action of your choice. If it has actions left, it can act normally
You cause it to take a single action of your choice. Not a unlimited number of free actions and a single action. You can't make your target drop a weapon as a free action, and stride away from combat as an action.
Also, the target takes the action, not you. So it could make a deception check against his allies' preception DC. You're level 13? Let's look at some level 12 monsters.https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=2116
A Wight Cultist has a deception of +4 against a Perception DC of 32.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=2322
A pitax Warden has a deception of +4 against a perception DC of 32. He does however, have performance +24, if you want him to convey the message via interpretive dance.
https://2e.aonprd.com/NPCs.aspx?ID=3504
A black Belt has a deception of +0 against a perception DC of 35, and will fail on even a natural 20.
|
|
It is Controlled for all three actions at Heightened 7, I am currently level 13.Is it in the rules to speak with the Controlled enemy (whether a free action or even have to spend 1 action to talk) and say something like "This one is the traitor in our ranks!" as it charges its ally to cause further chaos.Again, your effect is not subtle, and mind control is a known thing. As a DM, that's the start of the iceberg of reasons this wouldn't work.
But let's look at the spell.
failure On the target’s next turn, it’s stunned 1 and you partially control it, causing it to take a single action of your choice. If it has actions left, it can act normallyYou cause it to take a single action of your choice. Not a unlimited number of free actions and a single action. You can't make your target drop a weapon as a free action, and stride away from combat as an action.
Also, the target takes the action, not you. So it could make a deception check against his allies' preception DC. You're level 13? Let's look at some level 12 monsters.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=2116
A Wight Cultist has a deception of +4 against a Perception DC of 32.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=2322
A pitax Warden has a deception of +4 against a perception DC of 32. He does however, have performance +24, if you want him to convey the message via interpretive dance.
https://2e.aonprd.com/NPCs.aspx?ID=3504
A black Belt has a deception of +0 against a perception DC of 35, and will fail on even a natural 20.
Ok, that only minorly changes things, then you can make free actions, but a deception check is usually an action. It doesn't change that the target is making the deception check as best they can.
Is it in the rules to speak with the Controlled enemy (whether a free action or even have to spend 1 action to talk) and say something like "This one is the traitor in our ranks!" as it charges its ally to cause further chaos.Again, your effect is not subtle, and mind control is a known thing. As a DM, that's the start of the iceberg of reasons this wouldn't work.
You're completely wrong here. This is not what the Subtle trait does.
The Subtle trait merely hides all of your spell's incantations and manifestations, which basically means two things:
1) casting a subtle spell does not break stealth,
2) this spell cannot be identified by others.
Spells without the Subtle trait can potentially be identified, but this requires that person to spend actions to do so. Primarily, enemies would need to have the Recognize Spell feat to identify the spell as a reaction; if they have a form of magic detection AND are master or higher in Occultism then they can also use Quick Identification on their turn and spend 3 actions [1 action for legendary Occultism] to identify the spell against a DC 33 [Rank 7 spell, +2 for uncommon] - anything below master takes too long for combat.
The spell also has no obvious visual effects (like an exploding fireball or vines appearing all around), so while everybody knows the sorcerer is casting a spell, they have no idea what the spell does, nor who/what the target of the spell was - whether the target itself knows is up to the GM, e.g. by using the Charm spell as guideline:
Critical Success The target is unaffected and aware you tried to charm it.
Success The target is unaffected but thinks your spell was something harmless instead of charm, unless it identifies the spell.
If the controlled enemy does something odd, then other enemies can spend actions to Sense Motive to detect the magic control. But otherwise, while people know mind control exists, if they cannot quickly identify the spell, then they have no idea that their ally is currently controlled.
Is it in the rules to speak with the Controlled enemy (whether a free action or even have to spend 1 action to talk) and say something like "This one is the traitor in our ranks!" as it charges its ally to cause further chaos.
It depends a bit on the controlling effect. If the controlling effect only gives you control of a set number of actions, then you cannot use free actions like that - though you can spend a normal action to speak of course.
However, you're super lucky that You're Mine gives you control for 1 round, for this means you can also use the enemy's free actions and even reactions!
And yes, you can pass them drugs and have them drink them.
If it's an enemy with weapons, toss them away. Monsters usually have all statistics integrated into their statblocks, but depending on how your table runs things you could debuff an enemy's unarmed attacks by casting a 1st-rank Runic Body on them ("All its unarmed attacks become +1 striking unarmed attacks"), which should weaken their attacks significantly.
Delaying the controlled enemy's turn is possible but doesn't make much sense (they immediately get their Will save and could then potentially return to initiative), but taking a Reactive Strike against another enemy is super fun!
If it's an enemy spellcaster (occult or divine), hand them a scroll of Silence (2nd rank) and have them cast it on themselves - as the spell cannot be dismissed!
|
|
Charm is subtle, however. Book art depicts all non-subtle, non-illusion spells as having a clear effect. Are you suggesting that you could cast daze at someone, and no one would connect it? Or Fear? Charitable Urge doesn't have any such text suggesting the target is unaware of what you've done.
Is it in the rules to speak with the Controlled enemy (whether a free action or even have to spend 1 action to talk) and say something like "This one is the traitor in our ranks!" as it charges its ally to cause further chaos.Lying is at least one full round, but you do have that option.
Lie
Auditory Concentrate Linguistic Mental Secret
Source Player Core pg. 238 2.0You try to fool someone with an untruth. Doing so takes at least 1 round, or longer if the lie is elaborate. You roll a single Deception check and compare it against the Perception DC of every creature you are trying to fool. The GM might give them a circumstance bonus based on the situation and the nature of the lie you are trying to tell. Elaborate or highly unbelievable lies are much harder to get a creature to believe than simpler and more believable lies, and some lies are so big that it's impossible to get anyone to believe them.At the GM's discretion, if a creature initially believes your lie, it might attempt a Perception check later to Sense Motive against your Deception DC to realize it's a lie. This usually happens if the creature discovers enough evidence to counter your statements.
Success The target believes your lie.
Failure The target doesn't believe your lie and gains a +4 circumstance bonus against your attempts to Lie for the duration of your conversation. The target is also more likely to be suspicious of you in the future.
You spend the entire round to roll deception with the controlled enemy's modifier against his allies perception DC. If they've spent any time working together, the sudden accusation of a traitor is going to get additional scrutiny. Most enemies at your level can only lie to similar creatures on a natural 20. Some can't even do that!
Charm is subtle, however. Book art depicts all non-subtle, non-illusion spells as having a clear effect. Are you suggesting that you could cast daze at someone, and no one would connect it? Or Fear? Charitable Urge doesn't have any such text suggesting the target is unaware of what you've done.
At first you were simply wrong, but instead of accepting that you made a mistake and correcting yourself, you choose to instead dig yourself in on that mistake and start going with such obvious and nonsensical falsehoods?
I guess in your homebrew rules there's no need for Detect Magic, Magic Sense, or anything of that sort: everyone is always able to simply notice all spell effects right upon seeing them - whether it's a shapeshifted Druid, a target of Inveigle, or the victim of a Possession! \o/
But in the Pathfinder 2e rules it's clear: unless a spell has obvious effects (e.g. Fireball) or you identify the spell (e.g. quick recognition), you will simply have no idea what that spellcaster did. There's no aura of golden light radiating from the caster of Bless, nor some purple shroud around the victims of a Fear spell. Was that spell just now Bless, Bane, Benediction, Malediction, Fear, Wave of Despair, ...? You don't know. All you realize is that your team is suddenly struggling more at fighting the enemy team.
|
|
But in the Pathfinder 2e rules it's clear: unless a spell has obvious effects (e.g. Fireball) or you identify the spell (e.g. quick recognition), you will simply have no idea what that spellcaster did.
Citation Please. The page I'm looking at says identifying the spell gives you its name and effects. There is no check that would tell you its target. The art suggests that spells without the illusion or subtle trait create some flash.
Also, which trait tell you if a spell has obvious effects? Is Force Barrage visible? Because Mystic Armor is also a force effect, but it's described as shimmering. Is Phase Bolt? Dehydrate deals fire damage, but the text describes no obvious effect.
Nudge the Odds suggests that it can be identified by someone untrained. Is this a unique effect of an uncommon spell? Or do people recognize the use of magic, if not the effects?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The specifics of what the spell did are unknown, but it is still obvious that a spell was cast due to the manifestations. Without the subtle trait, any blatantly suspicious behaviors (e.g. shouting "Traitor!" and attacking an ally) can be reasonably blamed on "that spell that was just cast that didn't seem to do anything". Determining confidently what mental magic is affecting someone is a critical success on Sense Motive, but just a regular success lets you tell if they're acting normally or not. Picking up Subtle Spell from an archetype is definitely a nice addition to this that opens up new options.
I checked a few things. Removing armor takes too long, and Sovereign Glue/Everlasting Adhesive dries too slowly. Common drugs have too long of an onset time or too minor of initial effects, even aside from the saves being offered.
What you want instead are beneficial consumables with drawbacks. (I'm ruling out any rare stuff like blighted boons or cursed items.)
One action to move to the caster, one action to take a Potion of Emergency Escape, and one action to drink it. Fleeing for one minute with a 40-foot bonus to speed means that they'll be out of combat for a minimum of three minutes, no additional saves given, for the cost of three gold.
None of the mutagen drawbacks are anywhere near that bad, but Cognitive Mutagen is a typeless -2 on weapon/unarmed attacks. Drop weapon as a free action, move, take, and drink is possibly an improvement on simply throwing the weapon away, but probably not better than move, strike, throw weapon away. It's a good option for unarmed strike enemies, though.
I agree with Quid Est's first paragraph. While someone would need to have the right feats, etc, to identify the specific spell, they would still know that a spell was cast.
If you cast a spell, nothing seems to happen, then my friend starts acting strange; it's not a large leap for someone in a fantasy world to assume the spell caused the behavior.
They might not know the specific spell, and they might not know how it works, but the sequence of: person casts spell, nothing seems to happen, then an ally attacks another ally for no reason would strongly indicate mental control was being used.
I agree with Quid Est's first paragraph. While someone would need to have the right feats, etc, to identify the specific spell, they would still know that a spell was cast.
If you cast a spell, nothing seems to happen, then my friend starts acting strange; it's not a large leap for someone in a fantasy world to assume the spell caused the behavior.
They might not know the specific spell, and they might not know how it works, but the sequence of: person casts spell, nothing seems to happen, then an ally attacks another ally for no reason would strongly indicate mental control was being used.
Now, not knowing the spell and not spending actions on Sense Motive/Identify Spell does mean they don't know when it wears off, so there's a certain amount of free paranoia from that alone. It's just different from being able to fool them.
Ooh... Just thinking about some things to do with speech if the magic is obvious. "Shout the most damaging secret you know about your allies" is a nasty one that's in line with the Hag bloodline theme.
They might not know the specific spell, and they might not know how it works, but the sequence of: person casts spell, nothing seems to happen, then an ally attacks another ally for no reason would strongly indicate mental control was being used.
Can you expand on the part "nothing seems to happen", because a lot of stuff happens in a combat round and all of that could have been influenced by the unknown spell, e.g. all attacks are influenced by Bless, Benediction, Bane, Malediction, Heroism, Protection, Calm, ... .
Unless an ally behaves obviously weird, there is no indication that they're under mental control. Otherwise, are you having people roll Sense Motive when they're fleeing from a non-magical effect to check if magic is involved?
For example: Enemy spellcaster casts an unknown spell, then another enemy yells some orders (End it!), and three of your allies start running away. Would you suspect that the spellcaster used a Fear spell?
Or: Enemy spellcaster casts an unknown spell, then suddenly another creature appears and stabs you in the back (Rogue ending his Invisibility). Would you suspect that the spellcaster summoned a creature or illusion? Would you have them spend an action for Perception to check whether it's an illusion?
Because I get the feeling that people do a lot of metagaming here when it comes to spellcasting.
Similarly, I do not think that Subtle spell makes a difference to those people, because they'd just argue that obviously suspicious behavior from their ally makes them think mental magic is involved, regardless of not having seen a spell being cast previously. They'll probably say something like "They might not know the specific spell, and they might not know how it works, but the sequence of: spellcaster seemingly does nothing for a round, nothing seems to happen, then an ally runs away for no reason would strongly indicate mental magic was being used."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Attacking an ally" is the obviously weird part. If you control somebody, and have them spend their actions swapping out their weapon inefficiently, then nobody is going to make the connection without identifying the spell.
I do think it is good roleplaying to have a character using subtle spells work in a cover for what they're doing with their turn so they aren't just standing around obviously. Pretending to be a useless merchant or noble shouting unhelpful advice like, "Just kill them already! What do I pay you lot for?" is a good example. Or, if you need an alternate explanation for why someone starts stabbing their friend, unconvincing shouted offers of "A thousand gold to anyone who sides with me!" might make them suspect their ally of gullibility rather than magic influence. None of that works as well if it's coming from someone obviously casting some spell.
They might not know the specific spell, and they might not know how it works, but the sequence of: person casts spell, nothing seems to happen, then an ally attacks another ally for no reason would strongly indicate mental control was being used.Can you expand on the part "nothing seems to happen", because a lot of stuff happens in a combat round and all of that could have been influenced by the unknown spell, e.g. all attacks are influenced by Bless, Benediction, Bane, Malediction, Heroism, Protection, Calm, ... .
Unless an ally behaves obviously weird, there is no indication that they're under mental control. Otherwise, are you having people roll Sense Motive when they're fleeing from a non-magical effect to check if magic is involved?
For example: Enemy spellcaster casts an unknown spell, then another enemy yells some orders (End it!), and three of your allies start running away. Would you suspect that the spellcaster used a Fear spell?
Or: Enemy spellcaster casts an unknown spell, then suddenly another creature appears and stabs you in the back (Rogue ending his Invisibility). Would you suspect that the spellcaster summoned a creature or illusion? Would you have them spend an action for Perception to check whether it's an illusion?
Because I get the feeling that people do a lot of metagaming here when it comes to spellcasting.
Similarly, I do not think that Subtle spell makes a difference to those people, because they'd just argue that obviously suspicious behavior from their ally makes them think mental magic is involved, regardless of not having seen a spell being cast previously. They'll probably say something like "They might not know the specific spell, and they might not know how it works, but the sequence of: spellcaster seemingly does nothing for a round, nothing seems to happen, then an ally runs away for no reason would strongly indicate mental magic was being used."
Sure, I can share my thoughts here, and again, I want to echo Quid Est's thoughts about "attacking an ally is the obviously weird part" as something I agree with.
In PF2E, every spell - unless Subtle is used or the spell says otherwise in its entry - gives off some sort of visual and/or sound-based display, per Player Core. IE, if someone casts a spell, everyone around knows a spell is cast.
Now, that visual display can be flavored by the caster however they see fit. If a cleric of Desna casts Bless, maybe a field of butterflies comes down and fills the area of the spell to guide the cleric's allies; and maybe Fear cast by a worshipper of Zon-Kuthon might make the targets see elements of body horror happening to themselves in their mind.
But with every spell, the exact flavoring is endless. However, in universe, that flavoring is part of the spell casting.
So, if you see someone cast a spell, and some mass of blackness rolls over your friends, and they scream and run away, yes, you could hazard a guess that the spell made them afraid.
Now, there are a lot of spells that have Frightened as a rider, so you won't know *which* spell it is unless you spend an action to Identify Spell, but anyone can be trained in magical traditions and have access to that ability.
Your Invisibility example is less of a yes, since, as far as I know, you can't Summon people, so illusion might not come to mind for someone in the world, but if someone Interacts with a typical illusion, they do get a chance to disbelieve it.
The key thing here, IMO, is that when you, an ally, or an enemy Casts a Spell in a fight, or even in a social encounter, everyone *knows* that you have done so. It is clear and obvious, so with the Control example, the people in the battle would see:
a) A spell is cast;
b) Nothing seems to happen - no explosions, no walls just appearing, no one getting sick, or becoming scared, no wounds healing, etc.
c) A moment later, one of their allies just stabs another ally.
Then they might suspect mind-controlling magic, which is known to exist in the world. Now, they would not know what spell, how to end it, or anything like that, and they might even be wrong - maybe the ally was a secret spy and is betraying them without magic.
To actually know more, they'll need to spend actions and/or resources to find out more.
Is there metagaming involved? Sure, you could say that, but I'm someone who doesn't care about metagaming, and who also thinks that just about everything you do in an RPG (or most games for that matter) is metagaming, so that doesn't concern me.
Now, the Subtle Metamagic hides all of this. If you cast a spell with Subtle, then there are no signs, and in that case, no someone should not suspect magic was being used, unless they had some sort of special sense that let them detect it, and those seem to be very rare. That's the benefit of Subtle, to hide casting, but at an action cost.
Now, the Subtle Metamagic hides all of this. If you cast a spell with Subtle, then there are no signs, and in that case, no someone should not suspect magic was being used, unless they had some sort of special sense that let them detect it, and those seem to be very rare. That's the benefit of Subtle, to hide casting, but at an action cost.
I strongly disagree with this last bit.
While there may be no observable sign, in a world with magic I think it's entirely reasonable for even a lay person to say "hmmmm, my ally just did something unusual, and magic exists, so maybe there was magic involved". It's enough to cause someone to be suspicious if an ally starts acting in an unusual way. They won't know who cast it, or what was cast, or if their ally is a traitor or not. But it's not unreasonable for them to be suspicious magic was involved.
PF2E, every spell - unless Subtle is used or the spell says otherwise in its entry - gives off some sort of visual and/or sound-based display, per Player Core. IE, if someone casts a spell, everyone around knows a spell is cast.
Now, that visual display can be flavored by the caster however they see fit. If a cleric of Desna casts Bless, maybe a field of butterflies comes down and fills the area of the spell to guide the cleric's allies; and maybe Fear cast by a worshipper of Zon-Kuthon might make the targets see elements of body horror happening to themselves in their mind.
But with every spell, the exact flavoring is endless. However, in universe, that flavoring is part of the spell casting.
That's exactly where you're wrong. You are confusing visual/sensory effects of a spell with the act of spellcasting. In the Pf2e rules only the casting of a spell has obvious manifestations & effects, but the spell itself does not have any of those unless it's part of the spell description or the spell effect creates them (e.g. fireball, entangling flora).
Neither Fear nor Bless have any sensory effects and are completely imperceptible, unless you have a way to sense magic (e.g. Detect Magic, Read Aura, Magic Sense, ...). The Fear and Bless spells only have sensory perceptible manifestations on/around the caster during the act of spellcasting.
The Subtle trait only removes those manifestations during the act of spellcasting. It has no effect on the sensory manifestations of the spell effect itself: a fireball still has a flaming explosion, force barrage still shoots a magical shard at an enemy, a mist spell still obscures everything in fog.
The key thing here, IMO, is that when you, an ally, or an enemy Casts a Spell in a fight, or even in a social encounter, everyone *knows* that you have done so. It is clear and obvious, so with the Control example, the people in the battle would see:
a) A spell is cast;
b) Nothing seems to happen - no explosions, no walls just appearing, no one getting sick, or becoming scared, no wounds healing, etc.
c) A moment later, one of their allies just stabs another ally.
Again, your "nothing seems to happen" is super metagamy: what about all the other things that happened during this combat round?
All the hits & misses - could Bless/Bane/Malediction/Benediction/Calm/Heroism/... have influenced these?Did the fighter hit so hard because the spellcaster used a reach-spelled Runic Weapon?
And how would you even see wound healing if the other side wears armor? What if the sustained wounds were primarily mental/spirit/vitality/void/poison/force/precision/bludgeoning damage?
Now, the Subtle Metamagic hides all of this. If you cast a spell with Subtle, then there are no signs, and in that case, no someone should not suspect magic was being used, unless they had some sort of special sense that let them detect it, and those seem to be very rare. That's the benefit of Subtle, to hide casting, but at an action cost.
I don't believe you. Because the very scenario you described happens with or without Subtle spell:
the people in the battle would see:
A spellcaster doing something odd that you don't know what it was.
Nothing seems to happen - no explosions, no walls just appearing, no one getting sick, or becoming scared, no wounds healing, etc.
A moment later, one of their allies just stabs another ally.
Subtle doesn't change your scenario. When your ally suddenly attacks another ally, then you would still suspect mental magic, even if you didn't see that spellcaster cast a spell.
|
|
Again, your "nothing seems to happen" is super metagamy: what about all the other things that happened during this combat round?
I think part of being a game is that we accept that all characters are aware of all actions that could be viewed from their five-foot square. If you want to introduce a new "chaos of battle" element, the first thing would be facing, that characters can't see behind them. I don't want anything to do with those house rules.
|
|
"Attacking an ally" is the obviously weird part. If you control somebody, and have them spend their actions swapping out their weapon inefficiently, then nobody is going to make the connection without identifying the spell.
I do think it is good roleplaying to have a character using subtle spells work in a cover for what they're doing with their turn so they aren't just standing around obviously. Pretending to be a useless merchant or noble shouting unhelpful advice like, "Just kill them already! What do I pay you lot for?" is a good example. Or, if you need an alternate explanation for why someone starts stabbing their friend, unconvincing shouted offers of "A thousand gold to anyone who sides with me!" might make them suspect their ally of gullibility rather than magic influence. None of that works as well if it's coming from someone obviously casting some spell.
If you actually make a deception check, that's a full round of combat. (it's not just a three-action activity for some reason) If you don't make a deception check, what are you doing?
If you actually make a deception check, that's a full round of combat. (it's not just a three-action activity for some reason) If you don't make a deception check, what are you doing?"Attacking an ally" is the obviously weird part. If you control somebody, and have them spend their actions swapping out their weapon inefficiently, then nobody is going to make the connection without identifying the spell.
I do think it is good roleplaying to have a character using subtle spells work in a cover for what they're doing with their turn so they aren't just standing around obviously. Pretending to be a useless merchant or noble shouting unhelpful advice like, "Just kill them already! What do I pay you lot for?" is a good example. Or, if you need an alternate explanation for why someone starts stabbing their friend, unconvincing shouted offers of "A thousand gold to anyone who sides with me!" might make them suspect their ally of gullibility rather than magic influence. None of that works as well if it's coming from someone obviously casting some spell.
Providing alternative options. In the same way that somebody can assume strange behavior was caused by unseen magic without spending an action or rolling anything, an unconvincing and obvious lie of a bribe is still something they might assume their ally was gullible enough to fall for.
As far as the first one (shouting at your allies as if they work for you), that's just roleplaying for an ongoing Impersonate rather than an individual Lie activity.