PDA

View Full Version : How should NPCs react to subtle spell effects?



Talakeal
2013-02-25, 06:27 PM
If a PC casts a spell without obvious visual effects how long should it take for NPCs to react to it? How long should I "play dumb" and have the enemies waste their turns, if at all?

Assume, for discussion purposes, that the NPCs in question are close enough to the caster to be aware that a spell has been cast but lack the spell craft to actually identify the details.

For example, a wizard casts a wall of force in the path of an enemy. The wall of force blocks movement and is invisible. Should the enemy immediately go around, should they run into the wall and waste one turn, or should they continue standing their puzzled banding on the seemingly empty air?

If a wizard casts a spell to make an ally immune to whatever form of damage the NPC is attacking them with, how long should the NPC continue beating on their target ineffectively before wising up and switching targets or methods of attack?

It seems "realistic" for NPCs to take a while to adapt, but from a game perspective it seems a bit overpowered. Magic is already strong enough without it also taking away one or more of the opponent's turns.

ArcturusV
2013-02-25, 06:38 PM
This is what I usually reference Wisdom for. The guy who has 4 Wisdom? He'll run into the wall of force. Go "The hell was that..." and run into it again. Then he'll kinda sit back for a round trying to figure out what happened, etc.

The guy who has 10 Wisdom will go, "****, invisible wall" and probably run his hand along it until he finds the end of the wall and circle around next round.

The guy who has some Knowledge (Arcana) and decent wisdom will probably go, "Well a wall of force only has dimensions of X Feet... and he probably set it up to cover as much territory as possible or close off this bottleneck... so it's probably only 10 feet... 15 feet high. I can scramble up that with a single Climb check," and he hits the wall running.

The thing is, without knowing the spell in particular, much less where it's targeted, they are going to run into that invisible wall right off the bat unless they have something which allows them to detect magic... or the situation is such that the creation of a wall is obviously notable by some mundane effect... say a Wall sized depression in the loose sand that it's standing on, or a puddle/pond/stream that is suddenly dammed.

Jack of Spades
2013-02-25, 10:42 PM
Generally, just have the enemy act as normal until the spell's effect changes something. They (or one of their allies) hit the wall, or notice that the fire isn't working as well as it should, or the like.

If it's an invisible battlefield-affecting or self-range spell, then the characters should assume that the mage cast some sort of enchantment to make themselves stronger. If it's a targeted or touch spell, the movements of that spell should be signal enough that the mage cast some sort of spell on the other person. So, enemies will assume that the mage made that person more powerful in some way. How they react to that depends on the character.

Zarrgon
2013-02-26, 12:14 AM
If a PC casts a spell without obvious visual effects how long should it take for NPCs to react to it? How long should I "play dumb" and have the enemies waste their turns, if at all?

Most of the time I have NPC's act exactly like the PC's do: they instantly and automatically know the exact game rules of any spell effect.


But if we are playing a more reasonable, role-playing game, then NPC's will react as each individual would. Most mundane folks would know little about magic and just act confused at best.

Townopolis
2013-02-26, 02:32 AM
Most of the time I have NPC's act exactly like the PC's do: they instantly and automatically know the exact game rules of any spell effect.
This, adjusted to the reality of your game.

If the PCs encounter a fire-immune enemy and try to kill it with fire, do you just say run the fight as if everything were normal until someone thinks to say "Hey, wait a minute, we've done 6,578 fire damage to this guy and he's still not dead?" and only then say "actually, he doesn't look hurt at all," or do you indicate on the very first instance of fire damage that the foe seems unscathed?

If you are telling the PCs about things like fire immunity the first time it becomes important, do they immediately change their tactics, or do they throw a few more fireballs before their character wises up?

Play NPCs the same way.

Slipperychicken
2013-02-26, 11:25 AM
Spellcraft check to identify the spell while it's being cast. If they succeed, they know more or less what's going on (and in what way it would be obvious for the spell to be cast) and aren't fooled in the slightest. NPCs don't need to take time to adjust. Magic is perfectly normal in their universe and they've probably fought it before, seen it in action, or (if they're any kind of serious fighting force) at least had training seminars on how to fight spellcasters.

It's like using Disguise Self against guards. They know to pat you down to check if it's an illusion, and will arrest you if you're in the "wrong place" (i.e. they chase a guy who turns a corner, they hear him shout magic mumbo-jumbo, and suddenly it's a little girl sitting there).

Edenbeast
2013-02-26, 11:59 AM
Most of the time I have NPC's act exactly like the PC's do: they instantly and automatically know the exact game rules of any spell effect.


But if we are playing a more reasonable, role-playing game, then NPC's will react as each individual would. Most mundane folks would know little about magic and just act confused at best.

Metagaming is taboo. Even a wizard has to make a spellcraft check to realize what's going on. A PC or NPC fighter rolls for wisdom or intelligence to do something smart or just stands there. Maybe he tries again or attacks the invisible thing with his sword, or he waits to see what the enemy is up to.

Lapak
2013-02-26, 12:15 PM
If a PC casts a spell without obvious visual effects how long should it take for NPCs to react to it? How long should I "play dumb" and have the enemies waste their turns, if at all?

Assume, for discussion purposes, that the NPCs in question are close enough to the caster to be aware that a spell has been cast but lack the spell craft to actually identify the details.

For example, a wizard casts a wall of force in the path of an enemy. The wall of force blocks movement and is invisible. Should the enemy immediately go around, should they run into the wall and waste one turn, or should they continue standing their puzzled banding on the seemingly empty air?

If a wizard casts a spell to make an ally immune to whatever form of damage the NPC is attacking them with, how long should the NPC continue beating on their target ineffectively before wising up and switching targets or methods of attack?

It seems "realistic" for NPCs to take a while to adapt, but from a game perspective it seems a bit overpowered. Magic is already strong enough without it also taking away one or more of the opponent's turns.This is both spell- and NPC-dependent.

Non-intelligent opponents won't understand what's going on at all: an acid-damage ooze that is trying to absorb a guy with Acid Immunity can't reason out why it's not hurting him (or even necessarily that it ISN'T hurting him.) A zombie that's acting on 'attack whatever you see' will probably not find its way around a Wall of Force with any great precision or speed.

For intelligent opponents, the advice of 'exactly like PCs' is the right advice. Unless you'd tell the party (without a Spellcraft check) exactly what and where a spell was cast, you can't decide that the NPCs are omniscient. So yeah, they'll probably waste a turn running into a Wall of Force or waste one Fireball on a guy with immunity to fire, but they'll adapt after that. Being immune to an attack is pretty obvious, and they may not know the dimensions of a Wall of Force from memory but it's not that hard to run along it with your hand on it to figure out where it ends.

Spellcraft-capable enemies should know what's going on if they make their check. Not exact placement of invisible effects, perhaps, but what effect they need to be aware of and what it does.

To sum up, your statement "Magic is already strong enough without it also taking away one or more of the opponent's turns." is a little misguided in my opinion. Magic - at least the effects you are talking about - is strong only because it wastes the enemy's turns. If NPCs automatically know instantly that someone is Fire-immune and switch to another damage type without missing a beat, you have not made the immunity spell weaker; you have made it completely pointless. A Wall of Force isn't quite so nullified, but depending on the situation it may be nearly as neutered.

I wouldn't worry about enemies burning a turn or two figuring out such obstacles; I mean, it could have been a save-or-lose spell that takes away ALL their turns instead. Trying to make 'no visual effect' buffs and battlefield-control spells weaker will only push the game further towards Rocket Tag as spellcasters realize that indirect effects are useless in your game and try to maximize their potential for direct effects instead.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 12:53 PM
But if we are playing a more reasonable, role-playing game, then NPC's will react as each individual would. Most mundane folks would know little about magic and just act confused at best.

In maybe Dark Sun, I'd agree with this, but in Eberron or Forgotten Realms, magic is a way of life, and only the dumbest combatant isn't going to have heard of wizards making invisible walls.

Metagaming is taboo. Even a wizard has to make a spellcraft check to realize what's going on. A PC or NPC fighter rolls for wisdom or intelligence to do something smart or just stands there. Maybe he tries again or attacks the invisible thing with his sword, or he waits to see what the enemy is up to.


Any human being who lives in a world with magic is going to be smart enough to figure out that something magical is going on. Some really dumb characters might try to bang their way through, but they should be the exception, not the rule.

Nobody would just stand there in combat.

Edenbeast
2013-02-26, 02:42 PM
Any human being who lives in a world with magic is going to be smart enough to figure out that something magical is going on. Some really dumb characters might try to bang their way through, but they should be the exception, not the rule.

Nobody would just stand there in combat.

I disagree and agree. My point was not that a fighter or non-magic user wouldn't know what is going on. I agree nobody would just stand there in combat, that was maybe a bit exaggerated. My point is the natural response of someone to a wall of force. This depends on several things: one, the setting (high or low magic). And two, the experience with magic of the PC or NPC. I can imagine the NPC's hitting the invisible wall, then confused as they are, they jump back and hide behind a rock to reconsider what to do next. Some other guy will look around and wonder what hit him. Probably a mix between these two is the most realistic. They are being attacked, so staying in the open is not that smart. If there's a spellcaster with them, then he may have seen and identified the spell, and can instruct the others. Or the NPC's have fought an invisible force last week, and now they know what to do and search for a way around it. It's all very situational, and a good GM (imho) keeps these things in mind, for both players and NPC's.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 02:52 PM
I disagree and agree. My point was not that a fighter or non-magic user wouldn't know what is going on. I agree nobody would just stand there in combat, that was maybe a bit exaggerated. My point is the natural response of someone to a wall of force. This depends on several things: one, the setting (high or low magic). And two, the experience with magic of the PC or NPC. I can imagine the NPC's hitting the invisible wall, then confused as they are, they jump back and hide behind a rock to reconsider what to do next. Some other guy will look around and wonder what hit him. Probably a mix between these two is the most realistic. They are being attacked, so staying in the open is not that smart. If there's a spellcaster with them, then he may have seen and identified the spell, and can instruct the others. Or the NPC's have fought an invisible force last week, and now they know what to do and search for a way around it. It's all very situational, and a good GM (imho) keeps these things in mind, for both players and NPC's.

Thats fine with really low level warriors/etc, but a trained fighter is going to understand that magic is a possibility, and know that its a possibility. Hes not going to know its a wall of force, but hes going to know its an invisible barrier, and hes going to immediately try to figure out how to get around it. He's a trained martial expert.

Remember, if you're using NPCs above level 1, they've had experience similar to the party in order to get to that level.

Talakeal
2013-02-26, 03:11 PM
This is both spell- and NPC-dependent.

Non-intelligent opponents won't understand what's going on at all: an acid-damage ooze that is trying to absorb a guy with Acid Immunity can't reason out why it's not hurting him (or even necessarily that it ISN'T hurting him.) A zombie that's acting on 'attack whatever you see' will probably not find its way around a Wall of Force with any great precision or speed.

For intelligent opponents, the advice of 'exactly like PCs' is the right advice. Unless you'd tell the party (without a Spellcraft check) exactly what and where a spell was cast, you can't decide that the NPCs are omniscient. So yeah, they'll probably waste a turn running into a Wall of Force or waste one Fireball on a guy with immunity to fire, but they'll adapt after that. Being immune to an attack is pretty obvious, and they may not know the dimensions of a Wall of Force from memory but it's not that hard to run along it with your hand on it to figure out where it ends.

Spellcraft-capable enemies should know what's going on if they make their check. Not exact placement of invisible effects, perhaps, but what effect they need to be aware of and what it does.

To sum up, your statement "Magic is already strong enough without it also taking away one or more of the opponent's turns." is a little misguided in my opinion. Magic - at least the effects you are talking about - is strong only because it wastes the enemy's turns. If NPCs automatically know instantly that someone is Fire-immune and switch to another damage type without missing a beat, you have not made the immunity spell weaker; you have made it completely pointless. A Wall of Force isn't quite so nullified, but depending on the situation it may be nearly as neutered.

I wouldn't worry about enemies burning a turn or two figuring out such obstacles; I mean, it could have been a save-or-lose spell that takes away ALL their turns instead. Trying to make 'no visual effect' buffs and battlefield-control spells weaker will only push the game further towards Rocket Tag as spell casters realize that indirect effects are useless in your game and try to maximize their potential for direct effects instead.

Save or lose spells almost always require a save, buffs do not. Also, save or lose effects usually target a single enemy, while a protection spell effects every enemy the target fights for the spell's duration.

Generally if an ally is granted immunity or near immunity to an enemies attack form the enemy will have to either switch attack methods or move to a different target. This usually takes a turn or so, provokes an AoO, and causes the enemies to switch to a less efficient attack method or a less optimal target (otherwise why were they fighting the way they were in the first place?). This is in addition to the wizard getting to choose which of their allies will be hurt at any given time.

You don't consider all of that worthy of a low level spell slot without also effectively stunning the enemies for X turns?

Lapak
2013-02-26, 03:47 PM
Save or lose spells almost always require a save, buffs do not. Also, save or lose effects usually target a single enemy, while a protection spell effects every enemy the target fights for the spell's duration.

Generally if an ally is granted immunity or near immunity to an enemies attack form the enemy will have to either switch attack methods or move to a different target. This usually takes a turn or so, provokes an AoO, and causes the enemies to switch to a less efficient attack method or a less optimal target (otherwise why were they fighting the way they were in the first place?). This is in addition to the wizard getting to choose which of their allies will be hurt at any given time.

You don't consider all of that worthy of a low level spell slot without also effectively stunning the enemies for X turns?I'll take the items I bolded first, because based on them I think you're overstating what I'm suggesting. Would the PCs each individually have to a toss a fire attack at someone before deciding that he was immune to fire? I wouldn't think so. A non-obvious protection spell is typically going to 'waste' one action for the whole enemy side. Everybody else can see what happened (and/or speaking is a free action) so you're going to have one NPC [run into the wall / throw a fire spell / make a physical attack / whatever] and then the others will have the knowledge you're talking about. We're not talking about the entire enemy team standing around for half a dozen turns; we're talking about one guy wasting one turn.

And yes, the point of protection is to limit the enemies to less-efficient attacks or less-preferred targets, but that doesn't mean that the spell itself shouldn't do what it's supposed to do or that the enemy should miraculously know what it is without testing it. As you say, they're attacking the target they are in the way they are for a reason; granting them the knowledge of PC protections for free is effectively making them take (what they believe to be) suboptimal actions for metagame reasons. Or, if we're talking something like a specific elemental immunity and the enemy is a psionic character, simply bypassing it completely.

RE: 'one low-level spell slot': there are precious few low-level spells that offer blanket protection, especially in terms of non-obvious spells. Plenty that mitigate damage somewhat or offer a mild boost, but I can't think of anything below 4th or 5th level that is an invisible NO button against a particular attack form. And a 5th level spell really should be giving you a pretty noticeable advantage.

RE: 'save or lose have downsides': Yes, they do, and so do buffs and protections. (A big one is that they don't take the enemy off the field of battle! Even a less-effective attack mode is still incoming harm.) But by taking away one of the relatively minor advantages a protection spell gives you - the fact that it will probably burn a single enemy's turn if the NPCs don't have Spellcraft - you're making them even less attractive and your PCs more likely to look for ways of amping up the SoL spells while minimizing their downsides.

Talakeal
2013-02-26, 04:03 PM
Communication is a good idea, although many enemies simply can't do that for whatever reason. So you would say it wouldn't be unreasonable for the first attacker to notice he is immune, call it out, and then all of his allies know about it for the rest of the encounter?

True, few low level spells provide blanket immunity, but plenty first and second level spells give DR / Resistance 10 against X, which is virtual immunity at low levels unless playing in a very high power game.


but that doesn't mean that the spell itself shouldn't do what it's supposed to do

That is an awful presumptuous statement. I would say a spell that grants protection from X is supposedto protect the target from X. Anything else is just the DM adding additional penalties for RP reasons (which, don't get me wrong, may be fully appropriate, but I doubt it was taken into consideration when designing what the spell was "supposed" to do), and as far as I know there is no RAW concerning how NPCs choose their actions.

ArcturusV
2013-02-26, 04:10 PM
Outside of stuff like Morale checks in older editions. Which were a great idea. Or things like Diplomacy, Charm Person, Wild Empathy, etc.

Lapak
2013-02-26, 04:11 PM
Communication is a good idea, although many enemies simply can't do that for whatever reason. So you would say it wouldn't be reasonable for the first attacker to notice he is immune, call it out, and then all of his allies know about it for the rest of the encounter?I'm saying that it would be entirely reasonable for an NPC to do exactly that. Like the others said (and I agreed) if the PCs could do it there's no reason to assume that the NPCs wouldn't. The only thing I'm against is having the enemy automatically know what just happened for no in-game reason.

Talakeal
2013-02-26, 04:22 PM
I'm saying that it would be entirely reasonable for an NPC to do exactly that. Like the others said (and I agreed) if the PCs could do it there's no reason to assume that the NPCs wouldn't. The only thing I'm against is having the enemy automatically know what just happened for no in-game reason.

Ack, sorry, I meant UNreasonable. My bad will edit.

Synovia
2013-02-26, 04:46 PM
I'm saying that it would be entirely reasonable for an NPC to do exactly that. Like the others said (and I agreed) if the PCs could do it there's no reason to assume that the NPCs wouldn't. The only thing I'm against is having the enemy automatically know what just happened for no in-game reason.

Remember, in a single round of combat, all combatants are acting at the same time. In most cases (especially with standard action spells that take half the round) there isn't enough time for one NPC to cast a spell, yell to the other NPC, and then have him switch his spell and still get it off in the same round.

Having an NPC totally switch spells after the first NPC fails seems a little meta-gamey to me. Having him switch targets with that spell though? Sounds fine. For further rounds, of course they'd know.

Lapak
2013-02-26, 04:57 PM
Remember, in a single round of combat, all combatants are acting at the same time. In most cases (especially with standard action spells that take half the round) there isn't enough time for one NPC to cast a spell, yell to the other NPC, and then have him switch his spell and still get it off in the same round.

Having an NPC totally switch spells after the first NPC fails seems a little meta-gamey to me. Having him switch targets with that spell though? Sounds fine. For further rounds, of course they'd know.If we were talking 2nd edition or earlier, where the initiative process is explicitly

1. Everybody declares actions
2. Everybody rolls initiative (maybe individually, maybe as groups)
3. Actions happen as declared

I would agree with you completely. If we're talking 3rd or later, the way initiative works is explicitly 'you take your turn when it comes up.' Everybody is not acting at once. In keeping with 'if PCs can do it, NPCs can,' PCs don't - by the book - have to declare and stick to it. If I was a Duskblade intending to charge a guy, but my teammate goes first and downs him with an arrow, logically I shouldn't be able to suddenly swap over to zapping somebody else with a spell; I should be halfway across the map waving my sword. But 3e lets me do exactly that.

Slipperychicken
2013-02-26, 10:27 PM
Remember, in a single round of combat, all combatants are acting at the same time. In most cases (especially with standard action spells that take half the round) there isn't enough time for one NPC to cast a spell, yell to the other NPC, and then have him switch his spell and still get it off in the same round.

Having an NPC totally switch spells after the first NPC fails seems a little meta-gamey to me. Having him switch targets with that spell though? Sounds fine. For further rounds, of course they'd know.

If the PCs can pull off a calm, coherent conversation in-between sword swings (as they often do), then NPCs can shout warnings as a Free action. Something simple like "He's Immune to Fire!" or "The Orc resisted it!" is well within the confines of Free-action speech.