Do Enchantment targets notice they had been Enchanted?

[Mighty_Chicken]

I was wondering. The answer to this question could make the enchantment school altogether much stronger or much weaker.

If the targets always notice they had been enchanted, they'd be utterly frustrated, angry or afraid just after the end of a Charm duration. That would make her instantly hostile towards you.

I think almost everyone understands that Compulsion spells are always perceived after, and sometimes during, the spell duration, since they're offensive and have pretty unnatural effects. So I never saw anyone question that casting a Compulsion on an indifferent person buys you a new enemy.

But if people figure out they were charmed, therefore lied to, mind-abused, overpowered, charming people is way less powerful.



On the other hand, if people DON'T notice they were enchanted (at least as standard), some folks would believe they really felt like laughing histerically for 5 rounds in the middle of the king's speech. This could lead to any kind of different repercussions, the most crazy, but not unlikely, being the victim rationalizing what he just did and getting defensive about it, maybe even getting offended if someone suggested he did what he did because he wasn't controlling himself.


How do you play Enchantments in your game?

[Story]

Well if they make their save, then they'll know they were targeted by something. The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) lists a DC25+lvl Spellcraft check to determine what the spell was after rolling a save, with no mention that you had to succeed the save, so arguably, you can feel it even if you make the save.


As for what happens when it wears off, that's up to interpretation. The human mind is a powerful rationalizer, so I don't think they'd notice for normal effects. There have actually been expiriments where someone is asked to pick a photo, and are then secretly handed the photo they didn't pick and asked to explain why they picked it. Not only do they usually not notice, they come up with an explanation on the spot as if that's what they picked all along.

Now if it's something that they'd obviously never do, or if someone witnessed the spellcasting, then I think they'd figure it out and get mad.

[Gavinfoxx]

What if the Enchantment is a Spell Like Ability?

[Kasbark]

This actually came up in my game about a month ago. We play Pathfinder, so it might be different if you play DnD.


If you succeed a save, you know someone tried to cast a spell on, but not whom cast it (unless you saw him cast a spell, most people would be able to deduce it) or what spell it was (again, unless it has visual effects, and/or you make appropriate spellcraft checks)

The interresing bit is what happens if you fail your save, after the spell runs it course.
I argued that you would know you had been enchanted (and most likely by whom - you know whose suggestion you suddenly had to follow, or who you considered your good friend for 6 hours).
I based my stance on the spell 'hypnotism' ( http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/hypnotism.html ) which specifically states that after the spell ends, the target does not know he has been affected. This leads me to believe that for other spells, you do indeed remember you have been affected.

[Ashtagon]

Hmm, I don't think this has ever come up. I think a Will save (DC as original spell) would be an appropriate way to determine if the character realises he has been charmed. Bonuses to the save would apply if he did something unusual or outrageous (such as laughing loudly during the king's speech, or restraining his old friends against what was to an uncharmed mind a believable danger), or if asked to do something that the spell doesn't allow ("hello my new friend, please jump off a cliff").

[Mighty_Chicken]

Hmm, I don't think this has ever come up. I think a Will save (DC as original spell) would be an appropriate way to determine if the character realises he has been charmed. Bonuses to the save would apply if he did something unusual or outrageous (such as laughing loudly during the king's speech, or restraining his old friends against what was to an uncharmed mind a believable danger), or if asked to do something that the spell doesn't allow ("hello my new friend, please jump off a cliff").

Hm, excelent idea. A check!

I would disagree on two - no, three - things.

First, I don't think it would be a Will check. It's not a matter of Will to notice you didn't act, think or feel as you use to. I think Sense Motive, Autohypnosis and Concentrate would make sense. Spellcraft too, and you should receive a bonus if you're able to cast the spell that enchanted you. Even if the house rule is that the target doesn't know he was enchanted, he should be able to retroactively consider how weird his enchanter was acting around him and be granted a Sense Motive check. But yes, the DC should be the same.

But a second, minor thing I disagree with is the hardness of noticing you were enchanted. Will checks are harder than skill checks, and noticing you were enchanted shouldn't be that hard.

Third, I think Charm spells are much different from (most) Compulsions. Maybe it isn't that weird that you suddenly trusted a stranger so much, but starting to laugh out of nothing? Falling sleep and drowzing on the floor when you really weren't tired? Getting afraid of a 5 feet tall man with a pointy hat? I think most compulsions, except things themed as subtle (like Suggestion or Lullaby), should all be either automatically noticed after they're over, or impose a much easier check. Maybe half DC to notice?

This opens up a lot of possibilities. "Harder to notice" enchantments could be possible with metamagic feats. And unnoticed compulsions could be used to manipulate the targets. You could convince someone she doesn't deserve to be in the army, because she panicked when she saw a dog (Cause Fear). You could tell everyone the veteran fighter should retire, as dropping his sword in the middle of a battle shows he's going senile, and he himself can't explain what happened (Command). You can try to convince people who're being casted Crushing Despair on everyday that they are actually becoming depressed.



I argued that you would know you had been enchanted (and most likely by whom - you know whose suggestion you suddenly had to follow, or who you considered your good friend for 6 hours).
I based my stance on the spell 'hypnotism'

Yes, this makes the most sense, but checks are fun :)

Alternatively, only Enchantments modified by the proper metamagic feat would be potentially "unnoticeable"?


As for what happens when it wears off, that's up to interpretation

And depends on culture, too. Some cultures might consider that charming someone is abusive, and that being charmed is highly insulting. In other cultures, being charmed may be consider humilliating... and you should keep it to yourself, because the shame is on the sucker, not on the enchanter.

Other cultures, like gnomish, might have a lighter view on that. Gnomish men and women might charm their spouses to end fights or convince them to cook their favorite dish, and then face the consequences of the prank later. In villages close to good fey, being charmed may be considered an omen of good luck or an honor.

A more neutral perspective wouldn't consider Enchantments as invasive, just as bad or good as any form of seduction or manipulation.

As "the witch made me do it" would be plausible everytime an arcane caster is around, evil people could use them as scapegoats for everything if Dicern Lies isn't avaiable.

[Ashtagon]

Hm, excelent idea. A check!

I would disagree on two - no, three - things.

First, I don't think it would be a Will check. It's not a matter of Will to notice you didn't act, think or feel as you use to. I think Sense Motive, Autohypnosis and Concentrate would make sense. Spellcraft too, and you should receive a bonus if you're able to cast the spell that enchanted you. Even if the house rule is that the target doesn't know he was enchanted, he should be able to retroactively consider how weird his enchanter was acting around him and be granted a Sense Motive check. But yes, the DC should be the same.

Hmm...

Autohypnosis? That's your ability to put yourself in a trance, not your ability to recognise that someone has manipulated your thoughts.

Concentrate? That's your ability to maintain your train of thought when distracted by pain or noise or motion, not your ability to recognise that someone has manipulated your thoughts.

Sense Motive? That's your ability to read body language and vocal inflections, not your ability to recognise that someone has manipulated your thoughts. Otoh... it coudl be seen as your ability to read your own body language and earlier behaviour and contrast it with your normal routines. Call it DC 15 + spell level, as for Spellcraft.

Spellcraft: This works, DC as for detecting a spell was cast as it's being cast (15 + spell level). Note that this is higher than the Will save version (DC = 10 + spell level).

Downside to skill checks: Making it any one of several skills will make the rule hard to keep straight, and picking just a single skill will create odd situations in terms of likelihood to make the save, since skill ranks tend to be a "max or nothing" proposition.


But a second, minor thing I disagree with is the hardness of noticing you were enchanted. Will checks are harder than skill checks, and noticing you were enchanted shouldn't be that hard.

Actually, the default Will save is 5 points easier than the default skill check. Will saves are also more likely than skill X to be optimised to some level. And the DC for recognising the charm exactly matches the DC of failing in the first place. This has a nice symmetry, in that tricking your mind into rationalising your actions while under charm is a part of the magic.





Third, I think Charm spells are much different from (most) Compulsions. Maybe it isn't that weird that you suddenly trusted a stranger so much, but starting to laugh out of nothing? Falling sleep and drowzing on the floor when you really weren't tired? Getting afraid of a 5 feet tall man with a pointy hat? I think most compulsions, except things themed as subtle (like Suggestion or Lullaby), should all be either automatically noticed after they're over, or impose a much easier check. Maybe half DC to notice?


I'd rule that domination spells are automatically recognised. Maybe other enchantment (compulsion) spells have a DC 5 points lower than for enchantment (charms)?



This opens up a lot of possibilities. "Harder to notice" enchantments could be possible with metamagic feats. And unnoticed compulsions could be used to manipulate the targets. You could convince someone she doesn't deserve to be in the army, because she panicked when she saw a dog (Cause Fear). You could tell everyone the veteran fighter should retire, as dropping his sword in the middle of a battle shows he's going senile, and he himself can't explain what happened (Command). You can try to convince people who're being casted Crushing Despair on everyday that they are actually becoming depressed.

Yes, this makes the most sense, but checks are fun :)

Alternatively, only Enchantments modified by the proper metamagic feat would be potentially "unnoticeable"?


Since the DC matches the Will save, which is based on spell level, Heighten Spell does this naturally. Ditto for Spell Focus. However...

Inceptive Spell (metamagic)

Prerequisite: Ability to cast 1st enchantment (charm) spells, ability to cast 2nd level spells.

Benefit: The DC for targets of your enchantment (charm) spells to recognise that they have been affected by the spell after the spell expires is increased by five points. An inceptive spell occupies a spell slot one level higher than normal.

Normal: A character who is affected by an enchantment (charm) spell is entitled to a Will save (DC as for original spell) to recognise that he was affected by an enchantment (charm) spell.

[Andreaz]

1) succeeding a save points you that something happened.
2) no rules exist to determine it happened after the effect expires.

I'd rather leave it at that. People don't have reasons to think back what they did unless the topic is brought up (be it by their own study of their actions or someone else called it out).
If you give rules, people will ALWAYS be able to tell if they were controlled. The seed of doubt that is planted when you look back at a time you struck a helpless enemy in blind rage (was all that anger and thoughtlessness in part or all me?) goes away.

[Gnome Alone]

Gods, I feel so bad that that nice young weirdo with glowing pink eyes had to Charm me, just to get me to give him the family's ancestral Cloak of Charisma.

Wait a minute...

[Ashtagon]

Gods, I feel so bad that that nice young weirdo with glowing pink eyes had to Charm me, just to get me to give him the family's ancestral Cloak of Charisma.

Wait a minute...

It's more like:

He charms you. You fail. He asks for your ancestral cloak of Charisma. This allows an opposed Charisma check. Let's say he succeeds.

The spell ends. You get a new Will save. If this succeeds, you recognise that you were acting out of character and were probably charmed in some manner. Identifying the caster and type of spell would be a matter of logical deduction.

If you fail this save, you rationalise the gifting as coming from your own thought processes. ("I never felt worthy to inherit that cloak", or "I don't need that cloak anyway, I can manage without that crutch").

As a practical point, players will always know their characters have been charmed. These rules are mostly for NPCs, although good role-players should try to play within the spirit of this.

I'd also be willing to allow a new save after each night of rest; eventually, the charming should be recognised for what it is.

[Gnome Alone]

Huh, blue really does work better for emphasis.

That's a good interpretation; I think the character in my joke-example just passed that save remarkably quickly.

You'd think they'd've written about this more explicitly, it's kind of a big deal.

[Pilo]

Here comes the true rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow):

Succeeding on a Saving Throw
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

[Ashtagon]

Here comes the true rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow):

Succeeding on a Saving Throw
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

None of this actually addresses whether a person can recognise whether or not they have been successfully charmed after the event.

[Gnome Alone]

So you wouldn't actually sense it, but it's reasonable to think someone might figure it out after the fact. How many ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) does it take to know about wandering lunatics with strange powers who can make you think they're your friend?

[Andreaz]

None, and as said I prefer it that way. It allows for inner monster stories and dubious witch hunts.

[Ashtagon]

None, and as said I prefer it that way. It allows for inner monster stories and dubious witch hunts.

You can have a perfectly good inner monster story without being charmed. And simply realising that you were charmed doesn't mean you will be believed, especially if you try to use it as an alibi for a crime a few days after being caught. Plus of course, the best "inner monster" stories are those where the person actually is a monster (whether physically, such as a shape-shifter, or psychologically, as in a psychopath). Maybe have a "good" werewolf who gets charmed to commit a crime, and now has to prove his innocence, which'll be especially hard when, ya, know, he's a werewolf. Or maybe he is an orc or drow and a victim of fantastic racism; no charm spells needed, although that can certainly muddy the waters in finding out the truth.

Also, note that most detect truth/lie spells detect what the subject believes, not what is actually true, which makes even more fertile grounds for misdirection.

[Andreaz]

You can have a perfectly good inner monster story without being charmed. And simply realising that you were charmed doesn't mean you will be believed, especially if you try to use it as an alibi for a crime a few days after being caught. You're mixing up different ideas there. Inner Monster stories are about the guy discovering something about themselves or their bodies and being elated or terrified at it.
Adding something as simple as a save to discredit influenced actions takes away all the story potential without adding anything to it (because, as you said, it means jack to the observers).

All it will do is give players excuses to act even more psychotically without any strings attached.

[Ashtagon]

You're mixing up different ideas there. Inner Monster stories are about the guy discovering something about themselves or their bodies and being elated or terrified at it.
Adding something as simple as a save to discredit influenced actions takes away all the story potential without adding anything to it (because, as you said, it means jack to the observers).

All it will do is give players excuses to act even more psychotically without any strings attached.

Well, that kind of story, in the context of d20-based games (and I suspect, any RPG), can't have the PCs as the star, since a player will always know when their character has had their mind hacked.

There's still room for an NPC to be the star of such a story though.

[Andreaz]

Well, that kind of story, in the context of d20-based games (and I suspect, any RPG), can't have the PCs as the star, since a player will always know when their character has had their mind hacked.

There's still room for an NPC to be the star of such a story though.
Excuse-me for playing role playing games >.>
That doesn't exempt NPCs anyway, as everyone on the table, dm included, is aware of the mindscrew.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Hmm...

Autohypnosis? That's your ability to put yourself in a trance, not your ability to recognise that someone has manipulated your thoughts.

The way I see it, the better control someone has over her own mind, the better she knows herself and if something is amiss.


Concentrate? That's your ability to maintain your train of thought when distracted by pain or noise or motion, not your ability to recognise that someone has manipulated your thoughts.

I figured someone would find this one weird :)

Emotions happen in our body. Anything that changes our mindset also changes our body awereness. This may sound mystic, but that's actually the everyday experience of many actors, dancers, martial artists, etc. Including my own.

Concentrate is very often used in splat books as a character's ability to have some level of control over one's own body. I think that anything that relates to control over one's body may also be understood as body awereness.



Spellcraft: This works, DC as for detecting a spell was cast as it's being cast (15 + spell level). Note that this is higher than the Will save version (DC = 10 + spell level).

I think the exact DC would vary depending on the campaign setting. In my campaign, I think I would make them easy for the target to notice, unless the spell description makes clear that the spell is subtle; otherwise a 1st level adept could easily influence a kingdom's politics. And I think he should be able to do it, but not easily.


Downside to skill checks: Making it any one of several skills will make the rule hard to keep straight

I agree, but I think it's like how both Tumble and Jump can reduce falling damage. Somethings just make sense.

Also the only "mundane" option of the 4 skills I mentioned is Sense Motive. All the others are caster skills.


This has a nice symmetry, in that tricking your mind into rationalising your actions while under charm is a part of the magic.

Yes, this feels good :) But it all depends on how fragile to caster's reality-altering powers we want mundane people to be. Just to be clear: I'm thinking world building, not class balance.




I'd rule that domination spells are automatically recognised. Maybe other enchantment (compulsion) spells have a DC 5 points lower than for enchantment (charms)?

Sounds about right.





Inceptive Spell (metamagic)

Prerequisite: Ability to cast 1st enchantment (charm) spells, ability to cast 2nd level spells.

Benefit: The DC for targets of your enchantment (charm) spells to recognise that they have been affected by the spell after the spell expires is increased by five points. An inceptive spell occupies a spell slot one level higher than normal.


Hm. Great, but we need something to affect compulsions, too. So a caster can go Wormtongue manipulate people's emotions unnoticed. The obvious feat would be "Improved Inceptive Spell", giving the same boost to compulsions. But would it be balanced?


I'd also be willing to allow a new save after each night of rest; eventually, the charming should be recognised for what it is.

That's logical. But, in my opinion, need limits if we don't want all people around the world to think Enchanters are more dangerous and evil than Necromancers. I think that new saves/skill tests should only be allowed if the target has reasons to think about it on future ocasions. Giving your family's Cloak of Charisma will do that, probably for months, until you eventually figured out what happened. But giving a mundane gift, or discount, or letting that guy who obviously was invited to the baron's party to pass are things we don't care about remembering. The hyper-greedy merchant, though, might think for weeks why did he sold a single potion with discount. So if you're staying in town, knowing your targets may be important to not be caught.


None, and as said I prefer it that way. It allows for inner monster stories and dubious witch hunts.

That's awesome, and/but makes you consider the role of magic in a world. If magic is avaiable to anyone - if every town has a cleric to cast Dicern Lies and the like - the effects aren't so great. If the world is overall low-magic, the paranoia wouldn't be bigger than in the historical middle ages (anywhere from none to mass hysteria, but in average, just some, not much). But if magic is known as existing by everyone, but only heroes and nobles, not common people, has access to it... the Men in Black who make you sell your horse for one copper piece could be anyone, but the means to be protected against them aren't avaiable.

This can get very, very ugly in places where magic users abused their powers. A single deed can affect the culture for generations. This could lead a whole country to hate magic users tremendously. Maybe this would lead casters to be pariahs and secret weapons in the campaign setting.

Or casters could "regulate" their own kin's powers. Like classic WoD's vampires, who have the Masquerade and hunt those who disrupt it. Mages could try to hide the existence of Charms and Compulsions, by hunting those who use it or those who speak of it. Or mages could be expected to hunt down any other mage who isn't playing by the rules. Hamurabi Code references ensues.

And I'm thinking of Low-Magic or Mid-Magic worlds.


EDIT:

Well, that kind of story, in the context of d20-based games (and I suspect, any RPG), can't have the PCs as the star, since a player will always know when their character has had their mind hacked.

Actually... all it takes is some adaptation.

What does it happen if an NPC fails a save against Charm? He thinks the PC is his friend and will let him do/ask X.

The same happens to the PCs, and they'll probably behave and act accordingly, though they'll feel it suck. But if you want to be sneaky about it, make her save check hidden and tell her nothing. If she fails, just give the NPC an epic bonus to Bluff checks. My players are always making active Sense Motive checks, like if that could make them into mind readers... anyway, the players will be doing their Sense Motive checks, and I'll be telling them all the way the NPC is honest, and so on.


The first time I roll her Will/skill check to notice the manipulation and she actually scores a success, oh boy. "You feel something is not right. You feel someone manipulated you..." Out of nowhere! I imagine my players' minds spinning, "when did it happen, wtf, can this even happen in this game", etc. They feel in their skins what it is like to be in a world where you could be under a Charm spell at ANY moment and never know for sure.

But in a nutshell, you just have to make the NPC act naturally. Make the player's mechanical means to detect manipulation outright fail, or give the NPC bonuses against them (if his Charm spell already succeded). Different mechanics to achieve similar results: seems fair to me.

[Ashtagon]

Okay, tying it together...

A character who is targeted by an enchantment spell typically receives a saving throw (DC = 10 + spell level). if that save succeeds, they are not affected by the spell, the caster is aware that the spell failed, and the target is aware that a spell was cast on him (but not what type of spell or who cast it). Circumstantial evidence may give the intended target clues as to who the likely caster was.

The above is core rules.

A character who was successfully targeted by a domination spell is automatically aware that they are being dominated as soon as the caster chooses to exercise control. However, there is little they can do about it until the spell is removed.

A character affected by an enchantment (charm) effect is not aware of being charmed while the charm effect is in progress. When the effect expires, they may make a saving throw (DC = 10 + spell level) to realise they were being controlled. Characters may substitute a Sense Motive check (DC = 15 + spell level) if that check would be easier for the recently-charmed character.

A character affected by an enchantment (compulsion) effect may also become aware of the effect after the spell ends. Targets of enchantment (compulsion) effects are entitled to checks as for enchantment (charm) effects, but with a +5 bonus.

For both charm and compulsion effects, actions that are exceptionally out of (or in) character for the victim can grant circumstance modifiers to this check.

If this check fails, one additional check is allowed after a full night's sleep. If both checks fail, the character will sincerely believe his actions while charmed or under compulsion were his own idea and not the result of a spell. Only strong evidence to the contrary will dissuade him of this belief.

Inceptive Spell (metamagic)

Prerequisites: Ability to cast 2nd level spells.

Benefit: Any creature targeted by your enchantment (charm) or enchantment (compulsion) spell suffers a -5 penalty on his checks to realise that he had been affected by such a spell. A spell modified by this feat takes up a spell slot one level higher than normal.

Militarised Subconsciousness

Prerequisites: none

Benefit: You receive a +5 bonus on checks to realise that you were affected by a charm or compulsion effect.

----

Design Notes

The size of the modifier on Inceptive Spell is quite large (-5), but this is countered by the fact that it has a very circumstantial use - recognising that the spell was cast. It doesn't actually affect the chance of the spell working in the first place.

The feat names, Inceptive Spell and Militarised Subconsciousness, are a tribute to the film Inception.

Of the skills that were suggested for recognition of being the target of these spells, I kept only Sense Motive (and Will saves). Autohypnosis, Concentration, and Spellcraft are primary caster skills and so would not see much use, and giving too many options would cause decision paralysis.

I'm not entirely sure that Inceptive Spell should be applicable to compulsions. The entire point of a compulsion is that it is a more abrupt, jarring mind-control effect than a charm. I wrote it in anyway.

[Roog]

A character affected by an enchantment (charm) effect is not aware of being charmed while the charm effect is in progress. When the effect expires, they may make a saving throw (DC = 10 + spell level) to realise they were being controlled. Characters may substitute a Sense Motive check (DC = 15 + spell level) if that check would be easier for the recently-charmed character.

A character affected by an enchantment (compulsion) effect may also become aware of the effect after the spell ends. Targets of enchantment (compulsion) effects are entitled to checks as for enchantment (charm) effects, but with a +5 bonus.

[...]

Inceptive Spell (metamagic)

Prerequisites: Ability to cast 2nd level spells.

Benefit: Any creature targeted by your enchantment (charm) or enchantment (compulsion) spell suffers a -5 penalty on his checks to realise that he had been affected by such a spell. A spell modified by this feat takes up a spell slot one level higher than normal.

All those DCs are way too low.

Take a look at what saves/skills a mid-level character would have.

[Bucky]

Militarised Subconsciousness

Prerequisites:

Benefit: You receive a +5 bonus on checks to realize that you were affected by a charm or compulsion effect.


Is there a good reason not to make it automatic? After all, you are spending a feat on a fairly niche type of roll.

[Ashtagon]

All those DCs are way too low.

Take a look at what saves/skills a mid-level character would have.

Intentional.

I meant for most characters to find it reasonably easy to realise they've been duped, provided they put in some nominal effort into it. Especially so for compulsions. The Will save DC for charms is exactly the same as the basic save to resist the spell in the first place.

I'm not actually all that happy at the alternate, skill-based DC, since it scales differently compared to saving throws. I'd happily drop it entirely.


Is there a good reason not to make it automatic? After all, you are spending a feat on a fairly niche type of roll.

I agree that is a weak feat. If I were going to make it stronger, it'd be to give a +2 bonus on the save for the spell to work at all.

[Gavinfoxx]

*Giggles at all the Inception references*

[Mighty_Chicken]

Well organized. Congrats.

Hah. I didn't notice the Inception reference. Should had spent more ranks in Concentration.

I agree with Sense Motive being the only possible skill check, since while not all casters have ranks in this skill, they have an option to use Will which is better for them.

I think being able to cast the spell that enchanted you should give you a bonus to notice you had been a target. Anything like a +2 bonus would do.
This would be super cleric and wizard friendly - which isn't a bad thing. But if someone thinks it is, I guess it could be a bonus if the character had prepared the spell that day.

I think that being able of only two tests makes enchanters potentially harmful to world coherence, or rather thematically very powerful. A person who can't explain why she did something is insane. If the person avoids 'insanity' by rationalizing, you just changed someone's behavior forever. I think the target should have new save checks everyday until she stops thinking about it. If too much time passes until she makes the save (which will eventually happen), she knows she didn't act as usual, by won't necessarily suspect an outside agent did it to her mind.


When the effect expires, they may make a saving throw (DC = 10 + spell level) to realise they were being controlled.

Is this a typo or did you meant to keep the ability mod out? I'll consider it a typo for the examples bellow. If it wasn't a typo, consider makinf Inceptive Magic a +Mod bonus instead ot +5 bonus.



Now to test how these rules affect the game world.

Let's take 6 characters. The 1st level warrior, th 3st level aristocrat, the 10th level fighter, the 1st level sorcerer and the 10th level sorcerer.


The 1st level warrior is a target. After a successful enchantment, she attempts to notice she was manipulated with her Will save (+2 class, +1 Wis)
The 3rd level aristocrat is a target. After a successful enchantment, he attempts to notice he was manipulated with his Sense Motive skill (+6 ranks, +2 Wis, +2 feat)
The 10th level aristocrat is a target. After a successful enchantment, he attempts to notice he was manipulated with his Sense Motive skill (+13 ranks, +3 Wis, +2 feat)
The 10th level fighter is a target. After a successful enchantment, she attempts to notice she was manipulated with either her Will save (+3 class, maybe +2 Iron Will)
The 1st level sorcerer is using Charm. The save DC is 16 (11+4 Cha mod+1 Spell Focus), or 21 if the target uses Sense Motive.
The 10th level sorcerer is using a Heightened to 3nd lvl Charm. The save DC is 25 (13+6 Cha Mod +1 Spell Focus +5 Inceptive Spell), or 30 if the target uses Sense Motive.
You can't trust anyone, so the 10th level sorcerer will be Charmed by his twin brother, too. He attempts to notice the manipulation with his Will save (+7 class +2 Iron Will)


We'll begin with our 1st level sorcerer trying to charm people.

The warrior has a 60% chance of being charmed, a 60% chance of not noticing it right after the spell ends, and 60% chance of not noticing it next day. It's a 21,6% chance that it all happens, and a succesfull Charm has a 36% chance of going forever unnoticed.


If the charmed warrior is convinced to do something so weird it gives him a +5 bonus to the checks to notice what happened, there's a 12,2% chance that he never notices a successful charm.

Most common people would notice the manipulation. 12% wouldn't notice they did a weird thing.

The aristocrat has 55% chance of being charmed, a 50% chance of not noticing it right after the spell ends, and a 50% chance of not noticing it next day. It's about 13% chance that it all happens, and a successful Charm has about a 25% chance of going forecer unnoticed.

If something he did would freak him out enough to give him a +5 bonus to the check, there's about a 6% chance he never notices a succesful charm.

Depending on the campaign set, this aristocrat could be merely a baron, or the leader of a village, or the king. Anyway, he'd mostly notice the manipulation, but there's a chunky chance he wouldn't notice a subtle manipulation. There's no real chance a gross manupulation would go unnoticed.

Let's consider the 10th level fighter took Iron Will to make things less shameful for her. She has a 50% chance of being charmed, 50% chance of not noticing it right after the spell ends, and a 50% chance of not noticing it next day. Functionally, the same numbers of the 3rd level aristocrat.

The chance of noticing not noticing the freaky manipulation is 6%, too. A 6% chance of succeding is a 94% chance of getting busted. A goblin has a better chance of killing a PC than the 1lvl sorcerer has a chance of doing nasty things with a 10lvl fighter's mind.

Now we're not talking about a political person of medium to great influence, but of a mid to major hero in the world - with a 25% chance of not noticing she was slightly manipulated by a first level caster. The sorcerer would a 75% chance of being beaten to a pulp for what he did, but maybe he'd have a one extra day to run like a bitch.

That's it. I'm just giving numbers so other people can analyse. My own analysis so far is (please don't hate):
This isn't overpowered at all. Charm should allow you to do important things, even at low levels, if you use it intelligently.

But think of burglars. I have way less than 25% chance of being robbed when I'm downtown at midnight, but I'm very suspicious of anyone I see, because anyone could be a burglar. Being robbed is a minor annoyance, with a little possibility of becoming physical aggression or murder. But we never feel safe at night, just because it exists.

A 10th level fighter or a 3rd level aristocrat have a bigger chance of being manipulated by a 1st level hobo with NO consequences to said hobo than I have of being robbed. Even a smart, subtly used Charm is more powerful than a robbery. I ask you: would politicians and powerful warrior be suspicious about every spellcaster they met? Yes, they would.

Going on with the 10th level sorcerer!

The 1st level warrior have a 95% chance of being charmed, a 95% chance of not noticing it just after the spell ends, and a 95% chance of not noticing it next day. It's a 85% it would all happen, and a 90% chance a succesful charm would go unnoticed forever.

A successful charm as a 49% chance of never being noticed if it included, for example, giving the ancestral Cloak of Charisma to a stranger.

Powerful casters abusing their enchanting shenanigans on common folk would eventually get a bad reputation, but maybe it would be worth it, since half of them would be happy with what you did. Also, you'd potentially change their personality, and that's awesome

A 3rd level aristocrat and the 10th level fighter... would have the same chances as the 1st level warrior.

So now, infiltrating courts and manipulating people is really worth it. It would eventually be noticed that something is going on, though. so the aristocrats would begin taking Militarised Subconsciousness training. That would make regular manipulation have a 49% chance of never being remembered, and a 20% chance that freaky manipulation is never remembered. Which is still powerful and chaotic. I know I'm using a low-level exemple, but a) you don't need to influence the King to change history and b) some kings are low level.

The 10th level sorcerer has a 75% chance of being charmed by his twin brother, a 75% chance of not noticing it as the spell ends and a 75% chance of not noticing it next day. It's a 42% chance it all happen, and a 56% chance a manipulaton goes unnoticed forever.

A freaky manipulation would have a 25 chance of going unnoticed forever! I see a lot of enchanter cold wars going on everywhere.

I have to go, so for now, I'll just leave it all here.

Maybe in your campaign those are not problems. But if they are, I think it can be fixed by: 1) making both the save and the skill check DC 10+spell level (yeah, this means you don't add the ability modifier unless you have Inceptive Spell) OR 2) Allow NPCs to make the check day after day if it's something of greater importance in their life.

Oosh. This was tiring. I have no other toughts for now. Bye!

EDIT: So the low DCs were intentional, huh? I think that's alright then. I wouldn't bother redoing the calculations, though. I hope it helps to show others that the DC's are NOT low.

As for the Skill check, it is necessary for high-level NPCs.

[Ashtagon]

This thread reminds me of a rather notorious psychology experiment.

The subjects were asked to pick one from a set of specially designed cards (not playing cards, something distinctive, such as tarot cards). The card was noted by the experimenters, then the subjects were given a null task to remove the image of the card from their short term memory (eg. they were asked to read a page of fiction out loud). The subjects were then shown a different card from what they picked, and asked why they picked that card.

More than half the subjects not only did not notice the switch in cards, but gave their own explanations for why they picked that card.

Edit:

Leaving out the caster's ability modifier was a typo. The Will save DC to realise you were charmed should be identical to the initial save to resist the charm in the first place. For compulsions, the save for post hoc realisation is five points easier than the save to resist the initial spell.

That said, looking at the numbers you ran, I'd be quite happy with allowing new re-rolls each day to realise something was up until the victim either succeeds or the GM decides they have stopped thinking about the event. That's very much dependent on the event in question.

Someone charmed to give away his family heirloom cloak of Charisma, or make a major political decision, will be thinking about it a long time. Someone charmed to "give a small donation to the needy" will probably stop thinking about it fairly quickly.

Finally, I should note that even a successful and unnoticed charm is not a personality change, merely a rationalisation for a decision. If that rationalisation is examined carefully, it can crumble. And a charm never causes permanent Diplomacy skill attitude shifts.

Bob, I charm you! (save fails, Bob is charmed).

Bob, let's go boozin', carousin', and cruisin' for chicks!

Bob happily complies, since he's a bit of a lech anyway.

Bob, yer me bestest mate foreverrr!

Spell ends, Bob is too drunk to care. He gets to roll a save anyway, and another the morning after. As far as he is concerned, he did nothing odd. Days later, all he recalls is he was partaying with some cool stranger he'd never met before.

Verdict: No attitude change. If Bob meets Adam again sober, he might even recognise Adam as the cool partay dude. Which might cause him a disconnect as he tries to match the nerdy looking dweeb wizard in front of him with the god of partay from the week before.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Leaving out the caster's ability modifier was a typo. The Will save DC to realise you were charmed should be identical to the initial save to resist the charm in the first place. For compulsions, the save for post hoc realisation is five points easier than the save to resist the initial spell.

Well, in this case, my calculations are still valid.

The thing we have to debate here, before going straight to additional rules, is what the possiblity of succesful charm not being detected even means.

With any other spell, no matter how strong or weak it is, the target knows he was targetted in a success. Even if posthumously. Heh.

In the current rules we're discussing, there a very good chance the target won't even notice he was the subject of a spell. The chance of not noticing it in the first day is even higher.

This means the Charm caster is potentially an invisible agent. One who can alter the world without any sign of his or her agency.

On the other hand, if every Charm ever was noticed as soon as the spell ended, Charm would be a very aggressive spell to use, as it would probably get the target hostile towards you.

It depends on what kind of setting you're playing or DMing. As I said already, I don't think the rules as you presented would make enchanters strong or imbalanced, since the average 30% chance of not being noticed at first is too random to be used strategically.

But the 30% chance of being manipulated and not noticing it for 24h is a big loss to the target. It would make every person in the world - inclusing high level characters! - afraid of spellcasters. The Charm subschool alone would be sufficient to make pariahs out of spellcasters. I compared it to burglary. When you're alone in a dangerous place in the city, at night, what's the change the shady person 100 feet from you is a burglar? Very, very low. But you're suspicious about everyone anyway, because being robbed would suck.

Being charmed and not noticing it sucks much more than being robbed. What would you think of a category of people who can make your bank account to vanish just by looking at you, in a way you'd only find out hours later? Would be scared to death of those people. Their existence itself would be a peril, because you wouldn't even see them coming. That's how hate begins.

TL;DR: There no way, with your current DCs, spell casters wouldn't be feared and hated in a setting.

EDIT: Just read your edit :) Ok, I need some time to think on it. The research you mentioned makes sense that it wouldn't make the person's personality if they rationalize, and un-rationalizeable decisions ("Why did you let the known orc assassin sleep in the Prince's bedroom, captain?") would eventually scrapped with the infinite extra checks, not to mention the situational bonuses to the checks ("Wait, don't I hate orcs? Why exactly did befriended that one?")

Either way, low-level enchantments are still dangerous. Of course, they should be, but then again I'm thinking of what would the world think of spellcasters. People are more afraid of invisible agency then they are afraid of sheer power, and for good reasons.

One thing is thinking, "I shouldn't mess with Stallone, he can make me eat my teeth". Another thing much more scary would be, "If I oppose this guy in any way, or just talk to him, I may wake up in a bathtube full of ice". It's the combination of silent power and loss of personality that would make casters scary and subject to hatred.

(That's why people hated witches, btw. Because they supposedely made them participate on orgies and stuff)

If every Charm was acknowledged immeadiatly after it ended, it would be sheer power, not silent power (because everyone will know what the caster did, and people who aren't invisible can't comit crimes at will, right?) and not a matter of losing personality (because you'd remember everything you done and be able to have full self-awareness about it).

Maybe what's bugging me is the randomness of it. Ach, I don't know. See you later :)

[Ashtagon]

There are limits to charm person. The victim sees the charmer as a trusted friend. That doesn't mean he'll empty his bank account for the charmer though, although he might lend his friend a reasonable sum "till payday". Or might not, if he doesn't believe his friend has an actual salary.

Dominate person does have that power, although as I noted, domination is automatically realised when the spell ends (and during, for what that's worth).

From the DMG:


As the strange, wolf*like creature loped toward Tordek, he realised that it was a good friend that meant him no harm. But why was Mialee casting a fireball at it? He needed to stop her from doing that again.

...

A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to him.

If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.


That second point is an important one. Emptying your own bank account, or giving away your most powerful magic item, or signing a death warrant on your favourite auntie, would all count as "grievously harmful", and merit automatic refusal.

By way of modern example, if a friend asked to borrow ten quid, I'd be okay with that ("just buy me drinks and lunch next time we go to town"). A hundred quid, and that'd be a serious case of opposed Charisma checks for a charm person spell. A thousand quid, and that'd cause me serious financial issues, such that, even charmed, I'd automatically refuse.

And that £100 level, suppose I did it, I'd then be wondering why I did it for a long time, letting me make a new save each day till I figure I must have been charmed.

[Story]

This thread reminds me of a rather notorious psychology experiment.

The subjects were asked to pick one from a set of specially designed cards (not playing cards, something distinctive, such as tarot cards). The card was noted by the experimenters, then the subjects were given a null task to remove the image of the card from their short term memory (eg. they were asked to read a page of fiction out loud). The subjects were then shown a different card from what they picked, and asked why they picked that card.

More than half the subjects not only did not notice the switch in cards, but gave their own explanations for why they picked that card.


I mentioned that in my first post, though I didn't explain it as well.

[GoddessSune]

A character who is targeted by an enchantment spell typically receives a saving throw (DC = 10 + spell level). if that save succeeds, they are not affected by the spell, the caster is aware that the spell failed, and the target is aware that a spell was cast on him (but not what type of spell or who cast it). Circumstantial evidence may give the intended target clues as to who the likely caster was.

The above is core rules.

Well, core needs to change a bit. The target being aware that a spell is cast on them is just to harsh for enchantment spells. Enchantment spells are made to be unnoticeable, because as soon as they are noticed the gig is up. Like when your in the Dukes Party and you try to charm the Duke. He makes his save an immediately knows that someone is up to something magical. Then it's a simple ''guards seal the room and find the spellcaster''. In other words, an enchanter only gets one chance at a fail spell that then they are in trouble.

It would be much better for enchantment spells if there was no way you could detect a failed spell.


And for the next step, charm spells need to be unnoticeable. The idea should be more the the spell makes it seem like the idea was the the idea of the victim. So that even if the victim remembers anything, it would seem some what natural to them, but maybe just a little odd.

Take the group that gets into ''some trouble with the law''. They almost get arrested. But the enchanter casts a charm on the chief to do the old ''these are not the droids your looking for''. So the chief lets them go. Now if when the spell wears off the chief is immediately like ''they bewitched me! Put out an APB! Off with there heads!", it almost makes using the spell more trouble then it is worth. But instead if the chief is more like ''Deputy Eons: "Say boos why did we let the group go? Chief-"Eh, Ah, I don't know was just in a good mood then."

[Mighty_Chicken]

There are limits to charm person...

That second point is an important one. Emptying your own bank account, or giving away your most powerful magic item, or signing a death warrant on your favourite auntie, would all count as "grievously harmful", and merit automatic refusal.

Yes, I think I didn't express what I think very well.

D&D characters, both PCs and NPCs, are heroic, not ordinary. The scales are different.

What could harm the interests of ordinary people like you and me? Generally, only harmful stuff.

But with heroic individuals, there are more things at stake. The assassination of Fraz Ferdinand was enough (even if as an excuse) to start the most brutal war Europe had seen in many centuries. A Charm spell should be able to help an assassin to infiltrate some place and kill an important person; that's how fantasy works and it's great. But if the infiltration leaves no traces behind, the states, organations or groups that suffer the strike can't even react to it in any way.

Once more, this doesn't make Charms overpowered. It just make people extra afraid of enchanters, or any arcane caster, because people are afraid of invisible things.

I'm not afraid Charmers could dominate the world with your rules (they could, if no target ever notices what happened). I'm afraid any powerful person would see any caster as a wildcard and a threat to the status quo of entire kingdoms.

Solutions to that would be either don't think too much about it; or decide that Charms, even if avaiable at 1st level, somehow aren't that used as an strategy (maybe not all casters know or can learn it); or that you do require some Arcana ranks to know there's a chance a Charm target doesn't remember anything.



...A hundred quid, and that'd be a serious case of opposed Charisma checks for a charm person spell. A thousand quid, and that'd cause me serious financial issues, such that, even charmed, I'd automatically refuse.

And that £100 level, suppose I did it, I'd then be wondering why I did it for a long time, letting me make a new save each day till I figure I must have been charmed.

That's fair enough. But alternatively, your "friend" could say, hey, you'd better get some cash at the bank instead of using your credit card. So you trust him, and he has a bonus on his check to see what your bank password is. It's also easier to pickpocket someone who trusts you, so he could get you card, and now he has your password, and supposing he is careless enough to not give the card back to you, you could think you accidentaly dropped it somewhere. So there it is, he can sack your bank account, and he did nothing that would give you checks everyday or cause resisted Charisma checks or that seem harmful.

(Of course, some things depend largely on your personality. My close friends could find out my bank password if they wanted, because I'm careless with typing it when they're the only people around. But maybe you're naturally very careful with this things, even with close friends. So I think it adds a fun RP component to Charm spells: you got to try to make the target act naturally)



Well, core needs to change a bit. The target being aware that a spell is cast on them is just to harsh for enchantment spells. Enchantment spells are made to be unnoticeable, because as soon as they are noticed the gig is up. Like when your in the Dukes Party and you try to charm the Duke. He makes his save an immediately knows that someone is up to something magical. Then it's a simple ''guards seal the room and find the spellcaster''. In other words, an enchanter only gets one chance at a fail spell that then they are in trouble.

Nice, an alternate point of view :)

Personally, I believe magic should be powerful, but only if used strategically. I don't want Vaarsovius Theorem - "as the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero" - to be true in my games. Magic is powerful, and using powerful resources is always inviting the opposition to get more serious, thus not always the best idea. I also think Enchantment spells shouldn't be a "win button" for social encounters. A fireball can do anything between winning a fight and not being effective - it generally harms the enemy without vaporizing it right away. Enchantments should have this broad range of possibilities too. Sometimes they make you win right away, sometimes they fail, but generally they should give you a substantial advantage.

That's how I like things, anyway.


It would be much better for enchantment spells if there was no way you could detect a failed spell.

I agree there should be a metamagic feat for that. Even better if the target could roll a save against this.

If it was default, think of the all the possibilities of driving people insane by casting a emotion-altering Compulsion everyday on them. With enough time you could screw the social dynamics of any place... without even being detected. That's literally what a god of discord does. 5th level casters should be powerful, but not ninja gods.



And for the next step, charm spells need to be unnoticeable. The idea should be more the the spell makes it seem like the idea was the the idea of the victim. So that even if the victim remembers anything, it would seem some what natural to them, but maybe just a little odd.

I think that's how many people already read it. But just think of how powerful that would make casters.

It's not a problem of imbalancing the party dynamics or the game session. It's that the fridge logic is terrible. If almost all casters are able to manipulate anyone without ANY chance of being detected, anyone who was aware of that would be completely paranoid of having a caster around him. If everyone knew Charm and Compulsion spells existed, then casters would be either extremely feared or hunted. All casters! Thus, none campaign setting would ressemble what they're described like when it comes to relationship to magic. Maybe not even Dark Sun.


Take the group that gets into ''some trouble with the law''. They almost get arrested. But the enchanter casts a charm on the chief to do the old ''these are not the droids your looking for''. So the chief lets them go. Now if when the spell wears off the chief is immediately like ''they bewitched me! Put out an APB! Off with there heads!", it almost makes using the spell more trouble then it is worth. But instead if the chief is more like ''Deputy Eons: "Say boos why did we let the group go? Chief-"Eh, Ah, I don't know was just in a good mood then."

It would fit my game style. But I agree it heavily limits Enchantments, because if the target notices what happened while caster is still there you're almost invalidating most uses of Charm (at least at low level).

A solution would be just increase the time that it takes for the target to notice it (or get to do a check). 1 hour, one day, the same duration the spell has... any of those should be enough to limit Enchantments without invalidating them.

Either way, I think Charming law officers should have similar consequences to Magic Missiling law officers. Then again, a matter of game style.

[Ashtagon]

I would imagine that any noble or politician will require several witnesses to any authorisations to a major (or minor) new law. If such a new law proved to be out of character, not only would a low level wizard be available to detect for magical influence, but other mundanes would be around to check if he was acting out of character at all.

It would be autocratic dictatorships which would be most vulnerable to a carefully placed charm. Conveniently, in most settings these governments tend to be evil.

[Mighty_Chicken]

I would imagine that any noble or politician will require several witnesses to any authorisations to a major (or minor) new law.

You mean like kings, or feudal lords, or admirals, or high priests, or merchant/chivalry/religious companies mayors? All these guys can very likely to be Good or Neutral, and they all have absolute, immediate powers, only balanced by the limits of subjective "fairness" and legal or almost legal ways to depose them. Independent military leaders can suffer mutiny, and if the mutiny is fair the rebels might not be seen as traitors. High priests can be considered corrupt and lose their influence. Admirals can just lose their position. Feudal lords and kings, however, can't be contested and plotting against the person of the King is a major crime in any actual monarchy But all those methods happen after the bad order has already been executed.

Also, the example I gave wasn't about manipulating politicians to write laws. It was about manipulating guards to make it easier to kill the prince. Which Enchantment spells should be able to do. Just like Fireballs should be able to destroy castles, but people should be able, in the very least, to know that the castle is being destroyed. And if Fireballs were somehow able to demolish castles without the owners even noticing it, I'd be OK with the concept, but we'd have to admit that in such world no person in the world would like spellcasters, because they would be viewed as people who can shape reality. You see, I don't mean messing with physics, i.e. as Vaarsovius claims to do in OotS, and doing what high technology would. I mean, reshaping reality like a god would. At 5th level or earlier.

Even in your example, the whole infrastructure required to deal with the possiblity of magical manipulation (i.e. a procedure to check if the baron isn't charmed "just in case") can't exist without some form of prejudice against casters.

Ask a CIA agent if he'd be more scared of a random 1st level sorcerer or of a random arab person. Now see how much trouble peaceful and normal arab people get at american airports. How bad would be the social life of any spellcaster? See my point?



I think that if being charmed and not remembering it is a common happening, and people know of it, and are used to the notion, even the experience of living is altered. "Oh, that was a great day, we had so much fun because uncle Joffrey was back from war. Or maybe because we got charmed from a stranger who needed something from us. Man, popcorn was so less expensive that time". "I got this scar in a bar fight, after this guy started to stare at my gf's butt. Or maybe someone enchanted me to do it, who knows?"

Not that many people, in specific times and places, didn't live like that. But how would they react to a magic user?

[Ashtagon]

Dude, want to repost that without the white text? It kind of confuses teh issue about whether you are being serious or not, and whether you are being intentionally misleading or not. I'm not your commoner in a campaign with charmer wizards to be used as a live example. I'm trying to have a discussion here.

[Mighty_Chicken]

The text is white because I was just giving examples. I think examples are a good use of white text.

I was saying there that I know of no fantasy government that has 3 powers that balance each other. A political leader can be overthrown or lose his privileges, but he is not interrupted when executing something.

There are many forms of medieval or ancient government where you don't have a single person holding all the power, but they're not as common as monarchies and the like.

I can't see what I did but trying to discuss.

[TuggyNE]

The text is white because I was just giving examples. I think examples are a good use of white text.

Wait, what? Why? If the examples are part of your argument, make them easy to read.

[Sith_Happens]

If it was default, think of the all the possibilities of driving people insane by casting a emotion-altering Compulsion everyday on them. With enough time you could screw the social dynamics of any place... without even being detected. That's literally what a god of discord does. 5th level casters should be powerful, but not ninja gods.

Except that at some point someone is going to make their save, and by the time that happens it shouldn't be hard for them to put two and two together. The damage might already be done, but that doesn't stop word from spreading.

Also, I think a BIG thing people are forgetting about the Charm and Dominate lines is that they have both somatic and verbal components. Which means that without the right feats or skill tricks, if you enchant someone in front of any witnesses then your chances of getting off scot free are negligible.

[Mighty_Chicken]

Just passing by to comment that in the D&D Next current playtest, Charm targets always remember they were charmed. And it only lasts one hour, reagrdless of caster level.

Which makes Inceptive Spell even more interesting.


Also, I think a BIG thing people are forgetting about the Charm and Dominate lines is that they have both somatic and verbal components.

You could (and should) always cast the spell while hidden.


Except that at some point someone is going to make their save, and by the time that happens it shouldn't be hard for them to put two and two together.

I just think there's a reason we trust police officers who carry brain exploding machines in their pockets, but we fear the very existence of Rohypnol.

A deceptive and mind-controlling weapon is a hundred times more terrifying than a noisy, simple weapon of equivalent destructive power. I think Charm shouldn't be so deceptive and so mind-controlling people would hate all casters just because it exists.

I mean, if people were absolutely terrified of casters just because Charm exists, that would make a very interesting campaign, but then again, maybe the DM doesn't want something so dark. The original objective of this thread was more discussing scenarios than rules, anyway...