How to handle NPC's Subtle against a player?

[Citan]

Hi all!

I stumbled upon a problem I may have soon, since I want to introduce a NPC that may or may not end as the friend depending on how they play the encounter.

I'm pretty sure though, considering the party, that one player will act as a bully to him, any maybe another will try and pickpocket him.

The NPC will be a Sorcerer of sorts, albeit with only Subtle megamagic and a handful of non-violent spells, including Command, Charm Person and Detect Thoughts.

Let's say he will subtle Command against one player, either to prevent action or as a retorsion...
How should I manage it?

The rules would ask me to tell the player to roll a save, but I find it would ruin the whole purpose of Subtle, which is to cast a spell without anyone noticing it.

So, I see no good way to handle it. First about the roll...
1. Ask player to roll > he will make the link with the NPC, whatever happens.
2. Roll for the player > I don't like it first because I'm basically "playing for him", second because I usually roll pretty ****ty. XD
3. Ask players to roll some saves when starting the session, record and use in order? Seems very risky in terms of trust relationship between players and DM, also very difficult for me to adjudicate when to use while I make the story evolve on the fly.

Then about the reaction.
1. Is a "Subtle Command" without words? Or do you think only the actual casting is without words, but there is still something shouted?
2. If it was something shouted, should the player that succeed the save still feel/understand that some magic was tried against him, or just a spineless try to command him by shouting?
3. If it was something silent and player succeded, should he "feel" that something was attempted against it?

I hope my problematic is clear enough: I'd like for the NPC to be able to play its strengths but his prime priority is to always keep his true ability hidden, so Command may or not be an option depending on what you all will be saying.

And the players have no general way to ascertain his magical abilities (no external sign on NPC, no related skills on players).

It's in these kind of situations that I somewhat regret spells and magic is general is not a tad more detailed, especially as how people feel (or not) they are subjected...

Thanks for your help

[Contrast]

I'm a little confused. You seem to be worried about your characters metagaming but they're going to realise immediately OOC if they fail the save because you'll start narrating their actions for them/telling them they can't do stuff.

You're going to have to trust your players not to metagame or rethink your approach I feel.

[Unoriginal]

If you want your players to not know by what they're targeted, then ask them to give you their sheet for a bit, have them roll a die without knowing what it's for (or three of them, with only the first counting), then apply the relevant modifier.

[JackPhoenix]

You speak a one-word command to a creature you can see within range.

It won't be possible to hide what's going on. If the character saves, sure, but if not, it's clearly apparent some kind of mind control magic was used

[Verisichilli2de]

Hi all!
Then about the reaction.
1. Is a "Subtle Command" without words? Or do you think only the actual casting is without words, but there is still something shouted?
2. If it was something shouted, should the player that succeed the save still feel/understand that some magic was tried against him, or just a spineless try to command him by shouting?
3. If it was something silent and player succeded, should he "feel" that something was attempted against it?


I've always ruled that Command was pretty subtle in itself. The act of casting the spell and the effect of the spell are what typically indicate to the observer that magic is happening. In the case of Command the act is mundane, IE saying a word, and the effect is non-visual to onlookers. Unless you specifically rule that someone who is being hit my a mind-effecting spell is somehow physically effected (glassy eyed, body convulses, etc), then I would say it's pretty subtle.

[Citan]

It won't be possible to hide what's going on. If the character saves, sure, but if not, it's clearly apparent some kind of mind control magic was used
That is the part I'm troubled with, and apparently I'm not the only one. ^^

Since you actually shout a word (thanks by the way for the reminder, was AFB so couldn't check), if the target fails, why should it consider always that it was a decision against its will? Why couldn't we just consider instead that the magic "applied" to your voice, and the gain in charisma was so much that the target felt compelled to obey because it felt an overwhelming mental pressure to do so, as if you "just" made a 30+ result on a Persuasion/Intimidation Charisma check?

If in general people had to be aware of being manipulated/targeted by magic, why then would spells such as Friends, Charm Person or Detect Thoughts actually say black on white that the target is aware of the magical effect?

That's the reason I'm a bit puzzled with it in that case (as long as it was players using it against NPC, no problem obviously ^^).


I'm a little confused. You seem to be worried about your characters metagaming but they're going to realise immediately OOC if they fail the save because you'll start narrating their actions for them/telling them they can't do stuff.

You're going to have to trust your players not to metagame or rethink your approach I feel.
That's the point actually: I wonder if I have to strongly hint as to whether magic was employed ("Although you didn't want to obey, an irrepressible force makes you drop your weapon") or if it's fair that I make it... Well, subtle ("His voice was so imperious, you felt such authority in its voice that, before you realized it, you dropped your weapon").

[Asmotherion]

Narate as:

"You hear a voice in your head that you don't recognise. It is a single word-command. Roll me a Wis save"

if fails:

"You are compulsed to follow the command, and do so." Back to the other players: "You see X doing Y"

If it's strange for the character to react that way, they may be allowed an insight to figure out something went wrong. If not, and they meta, allow them to roll an insight either way, but with a higher or even impossible DC (or maybe, only succeded on a natural 20)

[Citan]

Narate as:

"You hear a voice in your head that you don't recognise. It is a single word-command. Roll me a Wis save"

if fails:

"You are compulsed to follow the command, and do so." Back to the other players: "You see X doing Y"

If it's strange for the character to react that way, they may be allowed an insight to figure out something went wrong. If not, and they meta, allow them to roll an insight either way, but with a higher or even impossible DC (or maybe, only succeded on a natural 20)
Hmm, it's yet another take as to how Command actually "works", at least when Subtled. Quite different from how I envisioned it, but maybe closer to RAW, I don't know...

[Unoriginal]

Keep in mind that the PC will be aware of who tried to mind-control him the instant it ends

[Drackolus]

Subtle removes the components, not the effect. I would rule that you still must do any verbal things in the spell, such as command or suggestion. Evocations such as Burning Hands and Fireball still clearly come from you, so they naturally give it away.
Now, if the npc has telepathy and can speak in a different voice with it, and also have a high deception check, then they may have no way of knowing it's the NPC doing it. And if I were trying to hoodwink someone like that, I would let the party know me for a bit before I did anything. No need to tip them off with the timing of the events.

edit: Not enough caffeine, language difficult.

[tieren]

Have them roll both the save and a contested charisma check, the player won't know if they were magically compelled or just convinced(persuaded) to follow the command.

[Drackolus]

Personally, I sort of don't llike using enchantment spells against players. They're there so that they can play their characters, not me.
Unless it's Strahd. But he's supposed to be a jerk.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Have this occur in the middle of a group of people. If there are 20 other patrons in the bar, store or church they won't KNOW who did it to them.

Now you will have to name a couple of the other NPC and have them do things, anything. Have one give a "I'll beat you down" look to the party fighter. Have another NPC check out your Bard and smile and so on just so they all seem like possibilities.

[Vogonjeltz]

The rules would ask me to tell the player to roll a save, but I find it would ruin the whole purpose of Subtle, which is to cast a spell without anyone noticing it.

How about something like: The player takes something, the NPC turns and shouts at them "Drop it!"

You don't have to tell the player why they're rolling, just ask them to roll a die, then calculate their result after any modifiers. Heck, you could just roll it behind your screen, and, as long as the PC has no abilities that work on saving throws (Bend Luck, Portent, etcetera) there shouldn't be a problem.

Otherwise just chide them for metagaming if they leap to a conclusion without sufficient in-game evidence.

[Douche]

This game is in person? Just slip the player in question a note. Make it say "privately do a roll. D.C. 15. Nod yes if you passed, no if you fail" then give him a note saying he's charmed.

It's up to him to role play it effectively, either in the spirit of being charmed or super obvious so the other players are made aware... that's personally one reason I don't like charm effects against players. Either it causes players to concede defeat (in such a way that it wouldn't matter if an NPC does) or they are resistant & it's not much fun for anyone

[Citan]

Have them roll both the save and a contested charisma check, the player won't know if they were magically compelled or just convinced(persuaded) to follow the command.
Nice idea!



How about something like: The player takes something, the NPC turns and shouts at them "Drop it!"

You don't have to tell the player why they're rolling, just ask them to roll a die, then calculate their result after any modifiers. Heck, you could just roll it behind your screen, and, as long as the PC has no abilities that work on saving throws (Bend Luck, Portent, etcetera) there shouldn't be a problem.

Otherwise just chide them for metagaming if they leap to a conclusion without sufficient in-game evidence.
Yeah, that is how I envisioned the Command spell in the first place, but seeing all the different opinions on here seems it is not as evident as I thinked... ^^
Although you are right, I have no obligation to tell them exactly why to roll a die. Nice idea too.


This game is in person? Just slip the player in question a note. Make it say "privately do a roll. D.C. 15. Nod yes if you passed, no if you fail" then give him a note saying he's charmed.

It's up to him to role play it effectively, either in the spirit of being charmed or super obvious so the other players are made aware... that's personally one reason I don't like charm effects against players. Either it causes players to concede defeat (in such a way that it wouldn't matter if an NPC does) or they are resistant & it's not much fun for anyone
Unfortunately it's on roll20, and while it's technically doable, it's a bit of a hassle to manage. Although it is certainly more discrete to hide the interaction from other players. ^^


Personally, I sort of don't llike using enchantment spells against players. They're there so that they can play their characters, not me.
Unless it's Strahd. But he's supposed to be a jerk.
I don't really see your point.

Isn't it natural for a magician of sorts to use his abilities to teach respect to people (as a reminder, I'm asking this in case my players are provoking him, which seem a fair chance considering their usual behaviour)?

More generally, can't you envision a character sufficiently self-imbued and clever to pull some tricks just for the sake of it, or because using mundane means is too trivial for his standing?

It's not playing the character in place of the player, it's just making the environment react to player's actions (and imo Commanding one to stop is much more lenient than directly dropping a powerful spell or curse in his face ^^).

Playing "for them" would be, imo, forcing their relationship with the NPC. Which I won't do. I'll let them do whatever they want with it. They will have to face consequences for either choice though obviously. ^^

[Asmotherion]

Hmm, it's yet another take as to how Command actually "works", at least when Subtled. Quite different from how I envisioned it, but maybe closer to RAW, I don't know...

RAW has no real clearifications here. What I give is my guess/bet on RAI, aka that Subtle Spell is meant, not only to work in the area of a Silence spell/when you are unable to speak properly/when your hands are tied etc, but also to mask the fact you casted a spell in the first place.

In any case, telepathic commands is the most RAI way I can imagine Subtle and spells with direct Verbal components interact. That, or the effect takes place instantly, without anyone realising what happened (in this case, the Subbtle Command was by the caster focusing on the desired effect). Your naration on this case, would be "Roll me a Wisdom saving throw." on a fail, you simply say "You drop your weapon to the ground." No questions asked. Can be effective too, adding a tone of mystery. I prefear the first way, as players may argue that, x had no reason to drop his weapon, and didn't seem to do it as an accident.

[Drackolus]

I don't really see your point.

Isn't it natural for a magician of sorts to use his abilities to teach respect to people (as a reminder, I'm asking this in case my players are provoking him, which seem a fair chance considering their usual behaviour)?

More generally, can't you envision a character sufficiently self-imbued and clever to pull some tricks just for the sake of it, or because using mundane means is too trivial for his standing?

It's not playing the character in place of the player, it's just making the environment react to player's actions (and imo Commanding one to stop is much more lenient than directly dropping a powerful spell or curse in his face ^^).

Playing "for them" would be, imo, forcing their relationship with the NPC. Which I won't do. I'll let them do whatever they want with it. They will have to face consequences for either choice though obviously. ^^

Sorry if I'm being unclear, aggressive, rambly, or having bad word choice. I'm oddly tired today (maybe sick?) and am probably being nowhere near as coherent as I think I am.

I meant more for spells like Suggestion or Geas. Command is only one turn, and crown of madness doesn't really control the character much.
It's similar to why I don't like to use finger of death or power word:kill. The threat of taking away a player's agency for a long time with a single die roll is just too harsh. Even Hold Person allows a roll every round, so you're still in the character's "space."
That's not to say that it should never be done, just that it should have a reason. Also, the vast majority of players would want to kill someone who is mind-controlling them. Hard to win someone over by mentally handcuffing them. That's why Strahd is allowed to do that - his whole character is supposed to be as hatable as possible.
If you do some sort of long-term control, try not to make it take too long in real time. Long "Cutscenes" translate VERY poorly to TTRPGs in general, since so much of the game already takes long as it is.
The key term for all of that is "player agency." If you take that away, it stops being a game and starts being a lecture by the dm.