Is it just me, or is Enthrall a completely terrible spell in every respect?

[Aquillion]

Its purpose is to give enemies disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks to notice anyone but you, for one minute.

But:

You can already do that without wasting a spell slot, just spending your action by being distracting; disadvantage and advantage are situational. Yes, it's not strictly spelled out, but that sort of "I sneak past", "And I act as a distraction!" is exactly the sort of thing the advantage / disadvantage system is for.
It doesn't work on creatures that can be charmed.
They get a Wisdom save, which they wouldn't if you did this without magic.
They get advantage on their Wisdom save if you're already in a fight.
Seriously, why are there so many limitations on a spell that does so little? This spell could just automatically apply disadvantage, with no save or limitations, and it would still be completely terrible.
Did I mention it's a 2nd level spell? As written, this would be worthless even as a cantrip. (And most cantrips make better distractions anyway.)

Am I missing something? There's a lot of weak spells in the books, sure, but this one is just shockingly bad. The only purpose it seems to have is to make it harder to find good spells. I wouldn't even call it a trap option, since it's so glaringly, obviously terrible that nobody is likely to fall for it.

[Lunali]

Any number of targets, lasts 1 min, no concentration. They get a wisdom save, but if you did it without magic you'd have to make a skill check, which averages out similarly.

[Aquillion]

Yeah, but it's a second level spell. I don't see how that fringe benefit over just taking an action is worth the cost of wasting both a prepared / known spell on this, and then a spell slot casting it.

[Jerrykhor]

Yeah its a complete waste of space. At least spells like Illusory Script still has some use for DMs. Enthrall is just one of those spells everyone choose to ignore it ever existed.

[Sigreid]

Well, a couple of things.

1. it can affect every npc of your choice within 60 feet.
2. It lasts as long as you want for up to one minute without requiring concentration.
3. Unlike most of the other charm spells it doesn't say anything about them knowing they were enchanted.

So you can distract a pretty large crowd while your party does something or your party rogue robs them blind. Seems pretty good to me.

[Aquillion]

Note that it doesn't make them ignore your party or anything like that - it gives them disadvantage on perception checks, but anything that wouldn't require a check is still noticed automatically.

While I know it requires concentration, Invisibility is the same level and lasts an entire hour.


Seems pretty good to me.Have you ever taken it? More to the point, would you ever take it, and if so, why?

Yes, it's not literally useless. But I find it hard to accept that it would ever be a worthwhile choice to devote one of your limited spells known or spells prepared to this.

[sophontteks]

Yes. In fact RAW its not even functional. It doesn't charm, so the targets are fully aware you are casting a spell in front of them. Casting spells is generally considered a hostile act, and nothing about the spell dissuades them from attacking you.

Spellcasting components, as per JC, are seperate from the spell description. You are standing there waving your hands and chanting at them. In almost every situation that is enough to warrant a roll for initiative.

It's worse then garbage.

[LudicSavant]

Enthrall is a very poor spell for both of the classes that can take it; Warlock and Bard.

To say it is very situational would be generous, and neither of these classes have a lot of space to spare.

Also, one more thing to add to your bullet point list: Enemies can totally see that you're casting a spell on them. It's up there with things like Melf's Acid Arrow and Witch Bolt in my book.

[Aaron Underhand]

Picked up a scroll of it once. I was still carrying the scroll 6 levels later. It was never worth casting, even getting it "for free"

[Sigreid]

Note that it doesn't make them ignore your party or anything like that - it gives them disadvantage on perception checks, but anything that wouldn't require a check is still noticed automatically.

While I know it requires concentration, Invisibility is the same level and lasts an entire hour.

Have you ever taken it? More to the point, would you ever take it, and if so, why?

Yes, it's not literally useless. But I find it hard to accept that it would ever be a worthwhile choice to devote one of your limited spells known or spells prepared to this.

I would take it on a bard and give magical performances.

I'm also not of the opinion that in a society with magic casting a spell is automatically perceived as a hostile act.

[sophontteks]

I would take it on a bard and give magical performances.

I'm also not of the opinion that in a society with magic casting a spell is automatically perceived as a hostile act.
Hard to picture. You are a guard. Suddenly a man jumps out and begins waving his arms about while chanting. Its a magical world, so you know he's casting a spell at you, and you know spells could be used for nefarious reasons.

What do you do?

[Max_Killjoy]

Enthrall is a very poor spell for both of the classes that can take it; Warlock and Bard.

To say it is very situational would be generous, and neither of these classes have a lot of space to spare.

Also, one more thing to add to your bullet point list: Enemies can totally see that you're casting a spell on them. It's up there with things like Melf's Acid Arrow and Witch Bolt in my book.

It's also a waste of a spell name that should be used on something a bit more personal and insidious, IMO.

[LudicSavant]

It's also a waste of a spell name that should be used on something a bit more personal and insidious, IMO.

It really is. Such a waste!

[Wildarm]

I've always felt the spell was pretty much meant for a bard to cast as part of a performance. I'd be pretty lenient as a DM if someone wanted to prepare and use it. It's not a super strong effect for a 2nd level spell. A good performance check could produce the same effect of drawing a crowds attention.

[Sigreid]

Hard to picture. You are a guard. Suddenly a man jumps out and begins waving his arms about while chanting. Its a magical world, so you know he's casting a spell at you, and you know spells could be used for nefarious reasons.

What do you do?

In this example it's the jumping out that makes me nervous. Someone casually walking down the street, nice and relaxed, and gesturing and speaking words isn't going to get me worked up. It's a world with magic and there are a lot of harmless and benign spells.

[Shuruke]

Yes. In fact RAW its not even functional. It doesn't charm, so the targets are fully aware you are casting a spell in front of them. Casting spells is generally considered a hostile act, and nothing about the spell dissuades them from attacking you.

Spellcasting components, as per JC, are seperate from the spell description. You are standing there waving your hands and chanting at them. In almost every situation that is enough to warrant a roll for initiative.

It's worse then garbage.

I've made good use on it as my A.T face
Sneak cast force disadvantage on save then come out with the distraction

Also I'm sure this could be a very good spell for sorcerer subtle spell

Since its non concentration u could have alter self or use charm person
Persuade them to let u go in cuz your just one person.

[sophontteks]

In this example it's the jumping out that makes me nervous. Someone casually walking down the street, nice and relaxed, and gesturing and speaking words isn't going to get me worked up. It's a world with magic and there are a lot of harmless and benign spells.
There are harmless spells, but there are also harmful spells. Everyone in a magic world can recognize these words and gestures as casting a spell, and most people you want to distract would have reason to be at the very least concerned about you casting a spell at them. With enthrall, the spells description does require you to be speaking to them after casting, so there is no question who the target of the spell is either.

[Sigreid]

There are harmless spells, but there are also harmful spells. Everyone in a magic world can recognize these words and gestures as casting a spell, and most people you want to distract would have reason to be at the very least concerned about you casting a spell at them. With enthrall, the spells description does require you to be speaking to them after casting, so there is no question who the target of the spell is either.

But, if I attend a bard's performance I expect it to be a magical experience. That's why I passed by the minstrel to get to the bard.

[MadBear]

The thing is, who care at all about RAW at this point? The obvious RAI isn't that the guards and everyone knows your casting the spell at them. Especially as a bard, it's completely obvious that your engaging an audience of people in a way that makes them unaware they're being distracted.

If I took this spell, and I cast it to distract some guards so the rogue could sneak in, and the DM said "roll intiative, the guards attack you", I'm leaving that table because the DM is a tool. No amount of "But but but... RAW" would be at all persuasive here.

With that said, the spell is very under-powered for a 2nd level spell, and it would be better if the text were more clear called out specifically that casting this spell wasn't considered a hostile act, even if it's obviously the case.

[Hecuba]

There are harmless spells, but there are also harmful spells. Everyone in a magic world can recognize these words and gestures as casting a spell, and most people you want to distract would have reason to be at the very least concerned about you casting a spell at them. With enthrall, the spells description does require you to be speaking to them after casting, so there is no question who the target of the spell is either.

Well first off, unless the guards are the only ones present it's not going to be clear that they are the only ones present - since it's going to affect everyone who can see and hear you. And treating spells as a threat depends on the rarity of their use: if magic is ubiquitous enough, it can be seen as a normal thing that happens in public spaces. A high elf might have mage hand as a racial cantrip and use it to carry the shopping home. Dancing lights might be a standard tool for traffic direction officers. And Enthrall, in particular, might be something you would expect to see as part of a normal magical performance - or perhaps something used by buskers and street preachers.

And seeing that kind of magic is common in public, then you've got a pretty good case to have someone use it whenever the rest of the party is trying to be discreet in public.

Additionally, if you've got a DC good enough that you're comfortable with the save even in combat (at least, when dealing with low-Wis foes) it can be a good way to help your party hide on a fast retreat - even if your party would normally have advantage from another source, giving the foes on the other side disadvantage as well can make that kind of opposed check much easier for non-specialists at low levels.

You'll pointedly need to have another way out for yourself, but this pointedly comes online at the same level as invisibility and misty step.

[Cuaqchi]

It's a spell that requires getting the jump on any combat, but when used properly can entirely derail encounters because of the Charmed condition. Can entirely disarm any guard post or camp with a single casting, and if a Glamour Bard can then cherry pick your Enthralling Performance targets from the group as you'll have had a full minute to chat them up.

[LudicSavant]

It's a spell that requires getting the jump on any combat, but when used properly can entirely derail encounters because of the Charmed condition. Can entirely disarm any guard post or camp with a single casting, and if a Glamour Bard can then cherry pick your Enthralling Performance targets from the group as you'll have had a full minute to chat them up.

Enthrall doesn't actually cause the Charmed condition. Immunity to the Charmed condition just gives you immunity to Enthrall, too. That's it.

[tieren]

I always picture a boss with a few invisible henchmen, maybe invisible stalkers or the boss concentrating on greater invisibility. Boss then casts enthrall for the party to have a hard time even noticing what squares the henchmen are in.

[Hecuba]

It's a spell that requires getting the jump on any combat, but when used properly can entirely derail encounters because of the Charmed condition. Can entirely disarm any guard post or camp with a single casting, and if a Glamour Bard can then cherry pick your Enthralling Performance targets from the group as you'll have had a full minute to chat them up.

While Enthralling Performance charms, Enthrall itself does not (though it does inherit charm immunity): it simply makes it hard to pay attention to someone other than the caster.

But it can still readily derail encounters at low level.

Taking that guard post as an example, let's assume you have a party of 5 that needs to get past the post. If one of those party members is a big clunky STR fighter with no stealth proficiency and disadvantage from heavy armor, a 15 on the opposed check might be out of reach even with Pass Without Trace.

Even if we assume that the bard/warlock who could take Enthrall would have something available to cover themselves AND one of the other is a rogue or similar that has proficiency in stealth and will likely pass, that still leaves 3 party members - one of which has disadvantage. If none of those have a dex bonus or penalty, you'll have 1 of the 4 rolls under question fail to hit 15 or higher about 60% of the time.

By debuffing the guards in addition, you are effectively cutting ~5 off of their side of the opposed checks - they'll high 10 or higher at about the same rate they would hit 15 or higher normally. As long as you have an out for your warlock/bard after you are the distraction, you will have moved a 60% failure rate to something closer to a 24% failure rate.

Once you get to higher levels where you can cast invisibility on more than one person at a time, there become better options. But Enthrall can be VERY facilitative for low-level party-wide stealth once you have a way to address escaping as the caster.

[Contrast]

There are harmless spells, but there are also harmful spells. Everyone in a magic world can recognize these words and gestures as casting a spell, and most people you want to distract would have reason to be at the very least concerned about you casting a spell at them. With enthrall, the spells description does require you to be speaking to them after casting, so there is no question who the target of the spell is either.

You live in a world in which anyone in a car could kill you as a pedestrian relatively easily. Do you treat someone starting a car near you as a hostile act or do you treat them as useful and convenient tools and assume those people using them near you will obey the appropriate rules and regulations that forbid harming you with one? You may of course keep an eye on a vehicle moving near you to make sure but you're hardly immediately running over to yank the keys out of their hand. Hey look at that guy starting a car over there...isn't that particular car kinda cool looking... *disadvantage to perception check following failed save*


I don't totally disagree with your point, just presenting a counter. A lot depends on the setting and how common magic is of course as well. My general mental cannon for stuff like this is that spells like this include magic built into the spell that befuddles the mind of the target relating to the casting of that spell particularly (which, depending on the spell, may wear off after a while). So Charm Person works but subtle spell is still useful because it means you don't also have to explain to the shop keeps assistant why you just cast a spell on the owner before trying to haggle over the price.

[JoeJ]

Hard to picture. You are a guard. Suddenly a man jumps out and begins waving his arms about while chanting. Its a magical world, so you know he's casting a spell at you, and you know spells could be used for nefarious reasons.

What do you do?

Alternatively...

You are a guard at the palace gate. A man dressed in bright colors and playing a lute walks up to you and sets his cap down on the ground as it he's expecting tips. Then he casts a spell and begins the most amazing performance you can recall ever witnessing.

[Hecuba]

Moving back to the OP:

You can already do that without wasting a spell slot, just spending your action by being distracting; disadvantage and advantage are situational. Yes, it's not strictly spelled out, but that sort of "I sneak past", "And I act as a distraction!" is exactly the sort of thing the advantage / disadvantage system is for.

This is somewhat true, but please keep in mind that It's not just "I'm a distraction." It's "I'm a magically powerful distraction that can effect everyone who can see and hear me and can't be ignored without a save - regardless of how well disciplined the area is".

It's also worth noting that it's disadvantage on an opposed check - so you can (and should) still try to pursue advantage on your side of the opposed check by other means.

[Coffee_Dragon]

But, if I attend a bard's performance I expect it to be a magical experience. That's why I passed by the minstrel to get to the bard.

But the sneaky bard represents himself as a minstrel and the sneaky minstrel represents herself as a bard. Which you realize, so you go to the minstrel. Which they realize, so...

[JoeJ]

But the sneaky bard represents himself as a minstrel and the sneaky minstrel represents herself as a bard. Which you realize, so you go to the minstrel. Which they realize, so...

So I can clearly not choose the musician in front of me.

[Max_Killjoy]

But the sneaky bard represents himself as a minstrel and the sneaky minstrel represents herself as a bard. Which you realize, so you go to the minstrel. Which they realize, so...


So I can clearly not choose the musician in front of me.

Bravo, bravo.

:smallbiggrin:

[Sigreid]

So I can clearly not choose the musician in front of me.

They were both bards. I've spent the last few years building up a resistance to bardic magic.

[sithlordnergal]

You live in a world in which anyone in a car could kill you as a pedestrian relatively easily. Do you treat someone starting a car near you as a hostile act or do you treat them as useful and convenient tools and assume those people using them near you will obey the appropriate rules and regulations that forbid harming you with one? You may of course keep an eye on a vehicle moving near you to make sure but you're hardly immediately running over to yank the keys out of their hand. Hey look at that guy starting a car over there...isn't that particular car kinda cool looking... *disadvantage to perception check following failed save*

See, I have one issue with that particular analogy. Magic is less a car, and more like a rifle. Would you get nervous is someone was openly carrying a rifle down the street? Even if it an open carry state, and there are no laws against it, most people would get concerned, and officers tend to get concerned. Sure, magic is a tool, but there are more spells designed to enthrall, charm, harm, trick, and kill then anything else.

I would be very surprised if a guard didn't get suspicious the moment someone began casting a spell in an area like that.

[Sigreid]

See, I have one issue with that particular analogy. Magic is less a car, and more like a rifle. Would you get nervous is someone was openly carrying a rifle down the street? Even if it an open carry state, and there are no laws against it, most people would get concerned, and officers tend to get concerned. Sure, magic is a tool, but there are more spells designed to enthrall, charm, harm, trick, and kill then anything else.

I would be very surprised if a guard didn't get suspicious the moment someone began casting a spell in an area like that.

IMO it's unrealistic to assume that in a world that has had good, evil, and mind their own business type magic users for tens of thousands of years operating out in the open in broad daylight are going to see any act of magic as automatically hostile. A wizard or holy man is a man walking down the street with a tool box, not a man walking down the street juggling handgernades.

[JoeJ]

See, I have one issue with that particular analogy. Magic is less a car, and more like a rifle. Would you get nervous is someone was openly carrying a rifle down the street? Even if it an open carry state, and there are no laws against it, most people would get concerned, and officers tend to get concerned. Sure, magic is a tool, but there are more spells designed to enthrall, charm, harm, trick, and kill then anything else.

I would be very surprised if a guard didn't get suspicious the moment someone began casting a spell in an area like that.

That depends on the setting. If every little village has at least 1 or 2 people capable of casting spells, even it's just a couple of cantrips, then most people in that setting will have learned that spell casting is just something that some people normally do. If you see some random stranger casting a spell there's a tiny chance it will be an attack, but it's vastly more likely to be something like Guidance.

[Eragon123]

I just had an order cleric cast enthrall on a medusa so that the wizard could sneak up and try to float a mirror in front of her.


The medusa made her save and combat was about to start but since she had already failed against enthrall combat didn't break it.

It IS a niche spell. However, if you have a spare second level spell pick.... why not?

[sophontteks]

I just had an order cleric cast enthrall on a medusa so that the wizard could sneak up and try to float a mirror in front of her.


The medusa made her save and combat was about to start but since she had already failed against enthrall combat didn't break it.

It IS a niche spell. However, if you have a spare second level spell pick.... why not?
Why didn't the medusa attack the person casting enthrall?



IMO it's unrealistic to assume that in a world that has had good, evil, and mind their own business type magic users for tens of thousands of years operating out in the open in broad daylight are going to see any act of magic as automatically hostile. A wizard or holy man is a man walking down the street with a tool box, not a man walking down the street juggling handgernades.
They are casting the spell directly at the target while speaking directly to the target. It's pretty freaking conspicuous and everyone in a magic world should know the dangers of spells enough to consider this hostile on its own.

An easy solution would be to consider the targets charmed by the caster so long as the caster continues to weave distracting words (thus preventing them from making seperate charisma checks). This way the targets can't do the obvious: Attack, or harm the person casting a spell at them.

[Yora]

I don't think that any warlock would ever learn enthrall under any circumstances.

You are probably going to have only two 2nd level spells, unless you decide you want a third 2nd level spell so badly that you give up a higher level spell for it. And at 2nd level you can learn hold person, invisibility, spider climb, suggestion, and darkness.

Who would ever skip all of these in favor of enthrall?

Bards are doing slightly better with spells, but they also have a lot more good spells at 2nd level.

It's not like there aren't any situations where you might want to use enthrall. But it seems completely inconceivable that anyone would ever want to learn it.

[JoeJ]

They are casting the spell directly at the target while speaking directly to the target. It's pretty freaking conspicuous and everyone in a magic world should know the dangers of spells enough to consider this hostile on its own.

Context matters. This isn't some known criminal casting a spell, it's a street performer. The spell is obviously intended to entertain you, and convince you to drop a little coin in their cap. In a big city you encounter people like that every week. If one of them occasionally does break the law, you arrest them, of course. But your experience is that they're generally harmless, and some of them are quite entertaining.

[Max_Killjoy]

Context matters. This isn't some known criminal casting a spell, it's a street performer. The spell is obviously intended to entertain you, and convince you to drop a little coin in their cap. In a big city you encounter people like that every week. If one of them occasionally does break the law, you arrest them, of course. But your experience is that they're generally harmless, and some of them are quite entertaining.

In at least some places in my two WIP settings, it's a crime to cast a spell, even a "harmless" spell, on any person without their consent and/or official writ from the "authorities".

Any spell, for any reason, it's a crime to cast it without one or both of those conditions being met.

[Sigreid]

In at least some places in my two WIP settings, it's a crime to cast a spell, even a "harmless" spell, on any person without their consent and/or official writ from the "authorities".

Any spell, for any reason, it's a crime to cast it without one or both of those conditions being met.

What about a spell that doesn't target of affect a person? Most of the ones I would expect to be cast in town wouldn't. For example, prestidigitation to clean a sword.

[Yora]

It's the same reason why you are not allowed to inject other people with drugs or take their purses and sort their money, even if you only intend to help them. You don't know what they are doing to you or your stuff. And since they are not asking for permission, it's most likely something you don't want to be done to you.

[JoeJ]

In at least some places in my two WIP settings, it's a crime to cast a spell, even a "harmless" spell, on any person without their consent and/or official writ from the "authorities".

Any spell, for any reason, it's a crime to cast it without one or both of those conditions being met.

That's true in much of my setting as well, with a few exceptions for things like self defense and emergency first aid. But enforcement of the law isn't perfect. People can and do sometimes get away with it, just as they sometimes get away with other crimes.

For the street performer in my previous example, a legitimate one would be casting things like Minor Illusion or Guidance, and once in a while Mending to repair a broken lute string. Casting Enthrall would definitely be illegal.

[Contrast]

See, I have one issue with that particular analogy. Magic is less a car, and more like a rifle. Would you get nervous is someone was openly carrying a rifle down the street? Even if it an open carry state, and there are no laws against it, most people would get concerned, and officers tend to get concerned. Sure, magic is a tool, but there are more spells designed to enthrall, charm, harm, trick, and kill then anything else.

I would be very surprised if a guard didn't get suspicious the moment someone began casting a spell in an area like that.

I chose a car specifically because it could kill you but also has other uses. A rifle has one use - shooting a thing. Magic has many uses, a lot of which (particularly at the low powered end) are non-violent. Its like we lived in a world in which there was one type of tool and depending how you held it it was a sewing kit, a first aid kit, able to provide light refreshment, could spruce up your appearance, a phone, a music player but which could also be used as a weapon by a skilled practitioner.

I'm not totally unsympathetic to your argument and there definitely are places casting magic is going to be unwise, I'm just saying your PC is going to feel awfully silly rugby tackling the mayor to the ground when he goes to cast Mending on his robe because you assumed he was about to Fireball you.


In at least some places in my two WIP settings, it's a crime to cast a spell, even a "harmless" spell, on any person without their consent and/or official writ from the "authorities".

Any spell, for any reason, it's a crime to cast it without one or both of those conditions being met.

Which is perfectly fine (I agree with OP that Enthrall is a pretty bad spell and it would be even worse in such locations - this is a pretty substantial nerf to spellcasters generally depending on the exact specifics but thats obviously up to the DM to manage). The fact that it's specifically called out in those places would imply that's not the intended universal approach(?) but settings will vary.

[Max_Killjoy]

What about a spell that doesn't target or affect a person? Most of the ones I would expect to be cast in town wouldn't. For example, prestidigitation to clean a sword.

If someone has paid you to fix or clean their sword with magic, then you have their permission to fix or clean their sword.

But if the sword doesn't belong to you, and you don't know whose it is, and you don't have permission, don't cast anything on it.



That's true in much of my setting as well, with a few exceptions for things like self defense and emergency first aid. But enforcement of the law isn't perfect. People can and do sometimes get away with it, just as they sometimes get away with other crimes.

For the street performer in my previous example, a legitimate one would be casting things like Minor Illusion or Guidance, and once in a while Mending to repair a broken lute string. Casting Enthrall would definitely be illegal.

Self-defense, good Samaritan (casting heal on someone who is unresponsive and dying, casting a spell to put out a building fire before it spreads, etc), and other normal exceptions typically apply similarly in those locations that have this sort of law, though the details vary -- some few places just hate magic more than they like unburned city blocks.

For the performer, it depends, is the illusion a "light show" that creates an image that anyone looking at the obvious performance can see and knows is part of the performance, or is it the sort of illusion that affects the mind? There's a line in there that the latter crosses where these laws are in effect, because it's affecting the person directly. (The difference between psychedelic lighting as part of a concert, vs pumping drugs into the air at a concert.)

[Deathtongue]

I think that in a world where magic is common, everyone is going to ask for permission before they cast a spell in front of others. If you just straight-up cast without asking permission or at least in a situation where that's the next expected course of action (like a medic going around healing people after a monster attack), people should treat you the same way they treat people who suddenly pull out a gun before revealing that it only shoots out a BANG! flag.

[Deathtongue]

Context matters. This isn't some known criminal casting a spell, it's a street performer. The spell is obviously intended to entertain you, and convince you to drop a little coin in their cap."Why did you sock me in the jaw? I just walked right up in front of the TSA agent and yelled I'VE GOT A BOMB... -- ERMAN 64 CARTRIDGE FROM MY GRANDMA!"

[LudicSavant]

Concur with Deathtongue and Max_Killjoy here. If a stranger casts an unknown spell on you without forewarning or permission, then I would expect the reaction to be akin to pulling a realistic-looking toy gun on them.

This is even more true when we are talking about guardsmen. I would even expect them to be specifically trained to react in such situations.

[JoeJ]

For the performer, it depends, is the illusion a "light show" that creates an image that anyone looking at the obvious performance can see and knows is part of the performance, or is it the sort of illusion that affects the mind? There's a line in there that the latter crosses where these laws are in effect, because it's affecting the person directly. (The difference between psychedelic lighting as part of a concert, vs pumping drugs into the air at a concert.)

Minor Illusion creates an image that anybody can see, or a sound that anybody can hear. In worlds where magic is common, it's probably standard fare for performers.


"Why did you sock me in the jaw? I just walked right up in front of the TSA agent and yelled I'VE GOT A BOMB... -- ERMAN 64 CARTRIDGE FROM MY GRANDMA!"

More like, why did the TSA agent leave his post and run 50' down the block to assault some poor minstrel who wasn't harming anybody? A guard who acted like that would be out of a job long before the one creep with Enthrall ever showed up.

[sophontteks]

Context matters. This isn't some known criminal casting a spell, it's a street performer. The spell is obviously intended to entertain you, and convince you to drop a little coin in their cap. In a big city you encounter people like that every week. If one of them occasionally does break the law, you arrest them, of course. But your experience is that they're generally harmless, and some of them are quite entertaining.
Minstrels and performers are known for their guile and cunning. They make for great, and common, thieves. It's not a inherently trustworthy profession. If they are casting illusions as part of a performance, that's one thing. If they are casting a spell at you, that's something completely different. This spell requires direct interaction with the target, going beyond a street performance. The caster is not acting as you are describing, he's making a very direct confrontation with this spell.

[JoeJ]

Minstrels and performers are known for their guile and cunning. They make for great, and common, thieves. It's not a inherently trustworthy profession. If they are casting illusions as part of a performance, that's one thing. If they are casting a spell at you, that's something completely different. This spell requires direct interaction with the target, going beyond a street performance. The caster is not acting as you are describing, he's making a very direct confrontation with this spell.

The spell affects everybody you want to affect (as long as you can see them and they can hear you) within a radius of 60 feet. You don't have to get into somebody's face, or single anybody out for your attention. You can absolutely be the minstrel who's across the street and partway down the block the street entertaining the crowd.

[Sigreid]

If someone has paid you to fix or clean their sword with magic, then you have their permission to fix or clean their sword.

But if the sword doesn't belong to you, and you don't know whose it is, and you don't have permission, don't cast anything on it.




Well, yeah but that doesn't have anything to do with magic really. I'd assume you don't get to go up and just do what you want with other people's things, whether you're using magic or not.

Edit: Maybe I'm a little odd though. I don't assume I'm constantly surrounded by people bent on causing me ill in surprising ways. Likewise, I don't assume just because someone's got some turtle wax and a rag they're going to run up and wax my car. But I've also not been talking about someone getting drunk and slinging firebolts down the street or magically rufieing the bar maid.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, yeah but that doesn't have anything to do with magic really. I'd assume you don't get to go up and just do what you want with other people's things, whether you're using magic or not.

Some posts here make it seem like magic is an exception to a lot of rules and laws -- social/ethical/moral, that is, not physical.

[Sigreid]

Some posts here make it seem like magic is an exception to a lot of rules and laws -- social/ethical/moral, that is, not physical.

Maybe that's the difference. To me, wrong is wrong and illegal is illegal regardless of the specific means. If you rufi the barmaid with magic it's the same as if you rufi her with a spell, for example. For enthrall, I'd say that's more akin to putting on a spectacular light or fireworks show than charming them since it doesn't make them do anything really. It just makes you harder to ignore.

[LudicSavant]

Some posts here make it seem like magic is an exception to a lot of rules and laws -- social/ethical/moral, that is, not physical.

This. If anything, the existence of certain spells means that some acts that would be taken as nonthreatening in the real world would be taken as very threatening in a world where D&D magic is a thing.

It's the same deal as how reasonable people aren't going to assume that a naked screaming body builder with glazed-over eyes and an axe is necessarily going to be squishier than a man in armor, any more than people in the Marvel Universe automatically assume that the Hulk is going to be easier to take out than Hawkeye in a bulletproof vest.

[JoeJ]

Maybe that's the difference. To me, wrong is wrong and illegal is illegal regardless of the specific means. If you rufi the barmaid with magic it's the same as if you rufi her with a spell, for example. For enthrall, I'd say that's more akin to putting on a spectacular light or fireworks show than charming them since it doesn't make them do anything really. It just makes you harder to ignore.

It seems to be to be a form of mind control. In most civilized places in my world it would be illegal to cast that on people without their consent. That doesn't necessarily mean it won't happen, though; people sometimes do things that are illegal.

[Citan]

Its purpose is to give enemies disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks to notice anyone but you, for one minute.

But:

You can already do that without wasting a spell slot, just spending your action by being distracting; disadvantage and advantage are situational. Yes, it's not strictly spelled out, but that sort of "I sneak past", "And I act as a distraction!" is exactly the sort of thing the advantage / disadvantage system is for.
It doesn't work on creatures that can be charmed.
They get a Wisdom save, which they wouldn't if you did this without magic.
They get advantage on their Wisdom save if you're already in a fight.
Seriously, why are there so many limitations on a spell that does so little? This spell could just automatically apply disadvantage, with no save or limitations, and it would still be completely terrible.
Did I mention it's a 2nd level spell? As written, this would be worthless even as a cantrip. (And most cantrips make better distractions anyway.)

Am I missing something? There's a lot of weak spells in the books, sure, but this one is just shockingly bad. The only purpose it seems to have is to make it harder to find good spells. I wouldn't even call it a trap option, since it's so glaringly, obviously terrible that nobody is likely to fall for it.
Hi!

Yeah, you're missing many things actually although most have been said.

In short, it's something that ...
- Can easily be masked as performance (for those considering spellcasting is hostile per se).
- Affects an unlimited number of persons (when you have groups of people, some are bound to have decent rolls, imposing disadvantage is great to turn odds in your favor), including animals (which are often used as sensors and usually have good Perception).
- Is more reliable than a check at low level (few enemies have WIS bonus to saves, but many have a few points of bonus in Perception).
- Is easier to rule than any illusion/suggestion based distraction (which is DM dependent, some may not like this).
- And can be stacked with whatever you can use as a concentration (or not) buff on your side...

Like, since we are talking of Bard, Enhance Ability (and possibly Bardic Inspiration) for a pal trying to do whatever check unnoticed (not necessarily hiding, it may be lockpicking, stealing something, etc)...
Or, since we are talking about Warlock, Invisibility (which does not negate the need to roll a Stealth check).
Or maybe simply an EK's Fog Cloud not too far... (DM dependent on whether people would notice a sudden Fog Cloud though, that's for sure).

On that note, it's especially useful for Warlock since that class replenishes spells on a short-rest basis, so in slow-paced days like just strolling around in city or infiltrating a place without time pressure it's extremely good when you don't have Expertise in Stealth some way or another (or actually even). Sure, you could do something similar with Hex but this one affects only one creature.

This spell is niche, so you can perfectly live without it. But you can also actively use it as long as campaign gives you some chance to do so (= no plain dungeonering "kill everything you encounter").

[Max_Killjoy]

Maybe that's the difference. To me, wrong is wrong and illegal is illegal regardless of the specific means. If you rufi the barmaid with magic it's the same as if you rufi her with a spell, for example. For enthrall, I'd say that's more akin to putting on a spectacular light or fireworks show than charming them since it doesn't make them do anything really. It just makes you harder to ignore.


I agree that wrong is wrong, etc, regardless of means, not sure why you think our positions are different on that matter. That doesn't really change the facts of the settings I was describing, where the laws specifically call out magic as a thing you don't do to someone without their consent/permission, and/or official authority.

Enthrall appears to affect the targets' minds, given that immunity to charm makes one immune to the spell, and it's a Wisdom saving throw otherwise to avoid the affect. As such, under the restrictions against using magic against a person's person, it would be illegal in those parts of the worlds I was talking about.

[LudicSavant]

In short, it's something that can easily be masked as performance

It might be harder to mask as a performance than you think. Not only can people see that you're casting a spell with no obvious audiovisual effect (as other posters have mentioned), but anyone can make an untrained check to recognize exactly what spell you're casting, too.

If you have 5 guards with a +0 Int and no proficiency in Arcana, for example, the chance of none of them knowing exactly what you tried to do is only about 33%.

And if you're actually trying to affect an unlimited number of people? Yeah, good luck.

Even if nobody notices what you're doing with Enthrall, you're basically trying to make someone fail multiple rolls (identify roll and Wisdom save roll) to increase their chance of failing at another roll. Not only is it niche, but the mathematical chances of success are not inspiring.

[OverLordOcelot]

IMO there are several spells like this that should have some form of 'subtle spell' built in. This should really be something you can cast furtively by RAW, instead of needing a DM to say 'yeah, OK, you're able to cast it without people thinking you're charming them'. Overall the low-level charm spells are too weak to be interesting; suggestion is the only one I can think of that's generally worthwhile, and that requires a generous interpretation of 'reasonable'. "A high persuasion" is generally much, much better than having charm person and can be used with basically zero risk, and while I appreciate that they didn't want to give a first level 'this enemy switches sides, it swung too far in the other direction.

FYI, the city of Mulmaster in Faerun is a published setting and was a major adventure hub in S2 of Adventurer's League, and outlaws casting 'arcane magic' of any kind within the city, period. There's definitely precedent that there are places where casting something that looks at all like a spell will get you into trouble fast, the idea that in a fairly high magic world like Faerun no one would ever be suspicious of casting doesn't really ring true.

[Sigreid]

I agree that wrong is wrong, etc, regardless of means, not sure why you think our positions are different on that matter. That doesn't really change the facts of the settings I was describing, where the laws specifically call out magic as a thing you don't do to someone without their consent/permission, and/or official authority.

Enthrall appears to affect the targets' minds, given that immunity to charm makes one immune to the spell, and it's a Wisdom saving throw otherwise to avoid the affect. As such, under the restrictions against using magic against a person's person, it would be illegal in those parts of the worlds I was talking about.

Eh, we agree more than not. I think I was mixing you up with the person who indicated anyone who thinks you might be using magic is going to panic automatically.

As far as enthrall, your ruling is fine I just see it as more of a magical version of Elton John's gold suit and feathered glasses. So it makes you harder to resist rather than dispelling others. No big.

[Citan]

It might be harder to mask as a performance than you think. Not only can people see that you're casting a spell with no obvious audiovisual effect (as other posters have mentioned), but anyone can make an untrained check to recognize exactly what spell you're casting, too.

If you have 5 guards with a +0 Int and no proficiency in Arcana, for example, the chance of none of them knowing exactly what you tried to do is only about 33%.

And if you're actually trying to affect an unlimited number of people? Yeah, good luck.

Even if nobody notices what you're doing with Enthrall, you're basically trying to make someone fail multiple rolls (identify roll and Wisdom save roll) to increase their chance of failing at another roll. Not only is it niche, but the mathematical chances of success are not inspiring.
I get what you mean but there is one thing of deep disagreement here. In my games, a regular guard of a random regular city (read: non high magic) will have always 0 chance of knowing what spell was cast.

Reminder: "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. "
Mirroring: includes "when that has a chance of success".

The essential part here is: "(you make a check) when the outcome is uncertain".

Casters spend months of their lifes studying arcanic magic. Unless I as a DM can justify that NPCs can be expected to have magic knowledge for whatever reason (actual casters, bodyguards, high level NPCs which ought to have some basic or specialized knowledge, "wide magic city") there is absolutely NO reason why they should have any clue at what's happening.

Hence "the outcome is certain": they simply cannot comprehend what's happening besides "that guy is using magic" at best, so no Arcana roll.

[LudicSavant]

I get what you mean but there is one thing of deep disagreement here. In my games, a regular guard of a random regular city (read: non high magic) will have always 0 chance of knowing what spell was cast.

Reminder: "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. "
Mirroring: includes "when that has a chance of success".

The important part here is: "when the outcome is uncertain".

Casters spend months of their lifes studying arcanic magic. Unless I as a DM can justify that NPCs can be expected to have magic knowledge for whatever reason (actual casters, bodyguards, high level NPCs which ought to have some basic or specialized knowledge, "wide magic city") there is absolutely NO reason why they should have any clue at what's happening.

Hence "the outcome is certain": they simply cannot comprehend what's happening besides "that guy is using magic" at best, so no roll.

What you say, and what the books say, are not the same thing. What the books say are that they can attempt to identify the spell, and have a pretty decent chance of success. You shouldn't accuse the OP of "missing lots of things" because they're not playing with your DM rulings.

[Citan]

{Scrubbed}

[LudicSavant]

First, this (my illustration on my ruling) and that (my opinion that OP didn't see everything) are different things.
I have not been agressive in the slightest (I FRIGGING DID NOT "ACCUSE"), I expect you to be as respectful. Otherwise we'll escalate this quickly.

Please don't yell at me in allcaps and threaten escalation in bold. And you most definitely did claim that Aquillion has made the mistake of missing things. Claiming that someone did something wrong or incorrect is one of the definitions of accuse.

[JoeJ]

you most definitely did claim that Aquillion has made the mistake of missing things.

Considering that OP asked, "Am I missing something?" it seems odd to object that somebody offered the opinion that yes, they did miss something.

[LudicSavant]

Considering that OP asked, "Am I missing something?" it seems odd to object that somebody offered the opinion that yes, they did miss something.

I didn't object to him saying that he was missing things. I said that he shouldn't say that people are missing things for not following his table rules.

[sophontteks]

The spell affects everybody you want to affect (as long as you can see them and they can hear you) within a radius of 60 feet. You don't have to get into somebody's face, or single anybody out for your attention. You can absolutely be the minstrel who's across the street and partway down the block the street entertaining the crowd.
The spells description requires that, on top of the verbal and somatic requirements and 60 foot range, that you weave a distracting string of words that they can hear. I guess I can see this is up to DM interpretation, but I'd consider the distracting string of words that they must be able to hear to be directed at them. While the enthralling effect is magically reinforced, it requires you literally enthralling them with your words in a more direct fashion as well.

There are spells with no noticeable effects, like charm person. But this spell has an additional noticeable effect.


Eh, we agree more than not. I think I was mixing you up with the person who indicated anyone who thinks you might be using magic is going to panic automatically.

As far as enthrall, your ruling is fine I just see it as more of a magical version of Elton John's gold suit and feathered glasses. So it makes you harder to resist rather than dispelling others. No big.
No one thinks that. People who know magic can be harmful should react to its use appropriately, and not act completely oblivious to the potential danger.

[JoeJ]

I didn't object to him saying that he was missing things. I said that he shouldn't say that people are missing things for not following his table rules.

I don't know of any table that follows the rulings that:

A) Every NPC in the world has the same ability PCs do to identify spells being cast.

B) Every NPC cares enough to use their reaction every time a spell is being cast, even in a city where spells are being cast all around them every day.

C) Every NPC who discovers that somebody cast Enthrall is angry enough to do something besides just walk away.



The spells description requires that, on top of the verbal and somatic requirements and 60 foot range, that you weave a distracting string of words that they can hear. I guess I can see this is up to DM interpretation, but I'd consider the distracting string of words that they must be able to hear to be directed at them. While the enthralling effect is magically reinforced, it requires you literally enthralling them with your words in a more direct fashion as well.

There are spells with no noticeable effects, like charm person. But this spell has an additional noticeable effect.

Since it affects groups, I don't see how the words could have to be directed at any one specific person.

[Citan]

I didn't object to him saying that he was missing things. I said that he shouldn't say that people are missing things for not following his table rules.
And you, first, didn't make any demonstration as to how what I was saying was not simple application of PHB (which, let's recall, does expressly give leeway to DM to rule things).
Second, expressed your post in an agressive and judgemental tone, which was totally uncalled for.

Hence my reaction.

So, again, I'm waiting. Plz provide source in PHB saying that any commoner can identify magic.
Hint: you won't find it. Because the only thing relevant is what Xanathar brought, which says:

"Sometimes a character (rule made in "PC relevant section) wants to identify a spell that someone else is casting or that was already cast. To do so, a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it's being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast."

"This Intelligence (Arcana) check represents the fact that identifying a spell requires a quick mind and familiarity with the theory and practice of casting. This is true even for a character whose spellcasting ability is Wisdom or Charaisma. Being able to cast spells doesn't by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells"

So, please explain how a farmer, a butcher, a servant would be familiar with theory and practice of casting?

...
...
...
Yeah, that's what I thought.
And since it's explicitely the reason why a character can try and identify a spell, it does imply that a character which lacks that knowledge or practice thus miss the basic requirement to even try an Arcana check.

Which boils down to: "each DM decides whatever level of basic knowledge an NPC gets" which we should all agree on.

But I yet have to encounter a DM that says that any and every commoner is an arcanic/diviner practicioner. If you do, I daresay you're not representative of the majority of games.

So, the fact that NPC don't necessarily get a chance at making Arcana checks is not a "houserule". It's the simple logical application of rules made on the premises that this(those) particular NPC in a given context do not meet(s) the prerequisites.

Only the latter (deciding whether and which NPC has enough knowledge) is a ruling, or rather a world decision, so obviously a YMMV.

I'm very confident I'm not alone though in considering that random guard in generic city is just a grunt with no particular knowledge.

[LudicSavant]

I don't know of any table that follows the rulings that:

A) Every NPC in the world has the same ability PCs do to identify spells being cast.

B) Every NPC cares enough to use their reaction every time a spell is being cast, even in a city where spells are being cast all around them every day.

C) Every NPC who discovers that somebody cast Enthrall is angry enough to do something besides just walk away.

I made none of these assumptions.

I assumed that a guardsman would want to know if illegal or dangerous magic is being cast in plain sight of them when they see a spell being cast with no obvious audiovisual effect (which as other posters pointed out, can be considered grounds for suspicion on its own), and that they have access to the abilities described in the DM section as applying to all characters, and that they have a +0 Intelligence modifier and no proficiencies.

[JoeJ]

I made none of these assumptions.

I assumed that a guardsman would want to know if illegal or dangerous magic is being cast in plain sight of them when they see a spell being cast with no obvious audiovisual effect (which as other posters pointed out, can be considered grounds for suspicion on its own), and that they have access to the abilities described in the DM section as applying to all characters, and that they have a +0 Intelligence modifier and no proficiencies.

Which, by RAW, they can't do. Since there is, as you point out, no obvious audiovisual effect, they would have to have make the attempt while the spell was being cast, when they didn't know whether or not there would be an obvious audiovisual effect.

[LudicSavant]

Which, by RAW, they can't do. Since there is, as you point out, no obvious audiovisual effect, they would have to have make the attempt while the spell was being cast, when they didn't know whether or not there would be an obvious audiovisual effect.

You're mistaken. The way the rule works is that you can make the check after the spell is cast if you perceived the casting or the effect.

They don't need a flashy audiovisual effect in order to identify the spell, they just need to have a passing interest in doing their job competently (being a guardsman in a world where magic is one of the biggest threats around) and see its components.

[Sigreid]

I don't think I would even consider Enthrall as described as casting a spell on people. I actually think it's intended to be like Elton John putting on a gold jumpsuit, platform shoes, a feather boa and huge sunglasses. So it's not that your casting a spell on people as you're creating a magical spectacle. So to me it's really just the ultimate attention whore look at me gambit.

[Deathtongue]

More like, why did the TSA agent leave his post and run 50' down the block to assault some poor minstrel who wasn't harming anybody?If someone at the airport was making bomb threats, even as an edgy joke, and then a TSA agent heard them, I would expect the agent to immediately confront and probably arrest the person making the joke.

"Security footage showed that this person was cracking wise about yelling 'Catholics out of Ireland' and blowing up a plane. Why didn't you stop them when they did it then instead of ignoring it?"
"Oh, you know, they were probably just making a joke and they were a few dozen feet away anyway. Why make a big deal out of it?"

[Deathtongue]

For enthrall, I'd say that's more akin to putting on a spectacular light or fireworks show than charming them since it doesn't make them do anything really. It just makes you harder to ignore."Dude, don't arrest me! All I did was put some nicotine oil in the punch bowl, it's not like cocaine or acid, that's barely even a stimulant!"

[JoeJ]

You're mistaken. The way the rule works is that you can make the check after the spell is cast if you perceived the casting or the effect.

They don't need a flashy audiovisual effect in order to identify the spell, they just need to have a passing interest in doing their job competently (being a guardsman in a world where magic is one of the biggest threats around) and see its components.

"a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it's being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast." (emphasis added)

It's possible the guards will be watching the minstrel (rather than somebody else in the crowd) closely enough to see that a spell is being cast. And it's possible that a guard will succeed in identifying the spell, which would probably cause the operation to be aborted. That's fine; there should be some risk in an operation of this sort.

There are also other things that can be done, such as having a second team member* approach the guards and distract them by asking a question while the entertainer (who has already been in place entertaining the crowd for half an hour or so) casts Enthrall.

(*I'm assuming there are other team members, since otherwise it's difficult to see what the point of casting Enthrall would be.)


If someone at the airport was making bomb threats, even as an edgy joke, and then a TSA agent heard them, I would expect the agent to immediately confront and probably arrest the person making the joke.

"Security footage showed that this person was cracking wise about yelling 'Catholics out of Ireland' and blowing up a plane. Why didn't you stop them when they did it then instead of ignoring it?"
"Oh, you know, they were probably just making a joke and they were a few dozen feet away anyway. Why make a big deal out of it?"

Where are you even getting this? Nobody is making a bomb threat. Nobody is joking about bombs. Nobody is even at an airport. This is a street performer, on a public road in front of the palace, playing an instrument, accompanied by a Minor Illusion every few minutes.. If the guard correctly identified one spell as Enthrall, they would have grounds to interfere, but not otherwise. Assaulting somebody simply for casting an unknown spell would result in the guard being arrested.

[LudicSavant]

"a character can use their reaction to identify a spell as it's being cast, or they can use an action on their turn to identify a spell by its effect after it is cast." (emphasis added)

It also says:

If the character perceived the casting, the spell's effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action

There's no ambiguity there. Perceiving the casting, spell's effect, or both is sufficient to trigger the check with the reaction or action.

[JoeJ]

It also says:

Right. So you can either assume that the second part contradicts the first (and decide which takes precedence), or interpret them in a way that does not contradict. I choose the latter.

[LudicSavant]

Right. So you can either assume that the second part contradicts the first (and decide which takes precedence), or interpret them in a way that does not contradict. I choose the latter.

It doesn't contradict in the first place. That's not how or statements work.

If something says "you can X or Y" and something else says "you can W or X or Y or Z," those statements are not contradictory. The latter is just a more complete listing of allowances.

For example: "I can be a Fighter or a Wizard" and "I can be a Fighter or a Wizard or a Barbarian or a Rogue" are not contradictory.

Edit: Moreover, even if we did use your interpretation (just for the sake of argument), it wouldn't change the outcome, which makes the point you are seeking to make kind of moot. A watchman's job is to watch and be alert for possible threats or suspicious activity. A common source of threats (in fact, the biggest threats) is spells. If they see a spell cast in their area by a stranger, they have every reason to pay attention, see if they know what it is (as it's being cast, rather than after), and become suspicious when there's no obvious visual effect for the show when it's cast.

So they still get their check, they still get their save, and they still get to use common sense and/or standard procedures for reacting to strangers casting unknown magics near guarded areas.

[JoeJ]

So they still get their check, they still get their save, and they still get to use common sense and/or standard procedures for reacting to strangers casting unknown magics near guarded areas.

All of which is more likely than not to fail, although it could succeed. And none of that makes Enthrall useless, or a terrible spell in every respect. It is probably more useful in an urban campaign than a traditional dungeon delving one, though.

It's also helpful that this spell will work on any creature that can hear and that isn't immune to being charmed. For example many animals have high perception bonuses but relatively poor Wisdom saves, making it potentially useful for getting past them. And even accepting your logic that the ability to identify spells is universal, the smarter animals (Intelligence 3-4) can only identify a 2nd level spell on a roll of 20; dumber ones can't identify it at all.

[LudicSavant]

All of which is more likely than not to fail, although it could succeed. The issue is cumulative probability, as established upthread.

Edit: Basically, in order for it to work, you need all of the people you want to distract to fail their checks (or opt out of making them), and their saves, and not be suspicious of you casting an unknown spell within a few dozen feet of them, and after all that your reward is that they still have a chance of succeeding at their Perception rolls. On top of all that, for it to be worth it, you'd have to be in a situation where other, more versatile spells or actions wouldn't have worked similarly well (so, for instance, your DM would have to rule that you can't just make an effective distraction without the spell). And the reward would have to be worth the investment of a 2nd level spell slot. It's a whole lot of ands.


And none of that makes Enthrall useless Well certainly, I can agree to that. I wouldn't say that it's literally useless. It's just really hard for me to recommend spending a spell known on it as a Bard or Warlock.

[Deathtongue]

Where are you even getting this? Nobody is making a bomb threat. Nobody is joking about bombs. Nobody is even at an airport. This is a street performer, on a public road in front of the palace, playing an instrument, accompanied by a Minor Illusion every few minutes..When the guard sees someone casting a spell they can't identify, why should they give the street performer the benefit of the doubt? It could just be Skill Empowerment to help them play their instrument better; so well that it convinces the wealthy dowager to elope with with rockstar magician. It could also be a Charm Person. What's more, the nature of identifying a spell is post-hoc. Which is problematic for spells like, well, Enthrall. By the time you identify the spell, it's oftentimes too late to do anything about it.

The safe action would be not to allow people to cast spells in public without the permission of authorities (i.e. you need a permit to do or allow a magical performance in a tavern) and to arrest people for casting spells on or around people without consent. Much like you'd arrest people who went around drawing guns in the middle of conversation without permission, even if the guns were unloaded or just realistic-looking toy guns.

[JoeJ]

The safe action would be not to allow people to cast spells in public without the permission of authorities (i.e. you need a permit to do or allow a magical performance in a tavern) and to arrest people for casting spells on or around people without consent. Much like you'd arrest people who went around drawing guns in the middle of conversation without permission, even if the guns were unloaded or just realistic-looking toy guns.

Not guns, think Swiss Army knives. Making it illegal to cast spells in public would be as absurd as making it illegal to use a pocketknife in public. The guilds would never tolerate any such law.

[Sigreid]

Not guns, think Swiss Army knives. Making it illegal to cast spells in public would be as absurd as making it illegal to use a pocketknife in public. The guilds would never tolerate any such law.

I keep wondering about all this. Probably because my default assumption is not that someone around me is going to try to injure or kill me. When someone around me has wanted to do me harm, they've broadcast that well in advance by acting sketchy.

[Aquillion]

I think the reaction people will have to spells is a cultural / setting issue. In some places, they might not even recognize that you're using magic, since it's so rare; in other places, it's so common that people casting spells in the streets is considered normal.

[sophontteks]

I keep wondering about all this. Probably because my default assumption is not that someone around me is going to try to injure or kill me. When someone around me has wanted to do me harm, they've broadcast that well in advance by acting sketchy.
Either you've never met a con man, or you've never realized you were conned. :smallbiggrin:

[Angelalex242]

Why would people get up in arms about Enthrall?

Imagine the D&D Equivalent of #metoo.

Enough said.

[sophontteks]

Why would people get up in arms about Enthrall?

Imagine the D&D Equivalent of #metoo.

Enough said.
Is this supposed to be offensive or gibberish?

[detro]

It's a purposely bad spell, because ivory tower game design. Or more likely, wizards of the cost is just too lazy to balance spells. I mean, they've admitted to making fireball overpowered for its spell level because it's "iconic".

[Aquillion]

It's a purposely bad spell, because ivory tower game design. Or more likely, wizards of the cost is just too lazy to balance spells. I mean, they've admitted to making fireball overpowered for its spell level because it's "iconic".I don't have a problem with that last one. Spells don't need to be absolutely perfectly balanced (and, inevitably, they won't be); in fact, part of what I disliked about 4e was that they prioritized balance over fun and thematics.

And there are actually valid game-design reasons to make iconic powers like Fireball a bit stronger than more obscure "niche" ones. In particular, it makes the game more accessible to new players - someone who wants to make an offensive spellcaster is likely to pick Fireball just because it's iconic, but even if they don't it's the pop-off-the-page obvious choice.

Of course, there are limits. You don't want to make Fireball so good that it obsoletes all other options. But I think that, at least as far as damaging spells go, they did all right (there are some clunkers, but it's not like Fireball completely obsoletes everything else.) In particular, fire is the most commonly-resisted damage type, which gives Fireball a lot of wriggle room in terms of being powerful while still leaving room for other spells to have their own niche.

Also, even with Fireball's damage jacked that high, I would argue that control is still a bit stronger overall - it scales better and tends to be more universally applicable.

[Sigreid]

Either you've never met a con man, or you've never realized you were conned. :smallbiggrin:

Conned is not attacked.

[LudicSavant]

The safe action would be not to allow people to cast spells in public without the permission of authorities (i.e. you need a permit to do or allow a magical performance in a tavern) and to arrest people for casting spells on or around people without consent. Much like you'd arrest people who went around drawing guns in the middle of conversation without permission, even if the guns were unloaded or just realistic-looking toy guns.Not guns, think Swiss Army knives. Making it illegal to cast spells in public would be as absurd as making it illegal to use a pocketknife in public. The guilds would never tolerate any such law.

If spells are a Swiss Army Knife, they're a Swiss Army Knife that can produce mind control beams, rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, and invisible poison gas. The potential threat level is vastly higher than a small knife.

Also, why would guilds object to people needing permission for things? It's not like they're not going to get permission.

[JoeJ]

If spells are a Swiss Army Knife, they're a Swiss Army Knife that can produce mind control beams, rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, and invisible poison gas. The potential threat level is vastly higher than a small knife.

For a few casters, the threat may be equivalent to a car or truck, but in the vast majority of cases it's just a few cantrips.


Also, why would guilds object to people needing permission for things? It's not like they're not going to get permission.

If permission is given that freely, then there's no real point in requiring it, is there? And the guilds would object because they wouldn't receive any benefit from what would be just another tax. The guilds already regulate the commercial use of magic. Nothing further is necessary.

[LudicSavant]

If permission is given that freely, then there's no real point in requiring it, is there? And the guilds would object because they wouldn't receive any benefit from what would be just another tax. The guilds already regulate the commercial use of magic. Nothing further is necessary.

Weren't you just objecting to the idea of authorities such as guilds having any regulation of the use of magic, such as licensing commercial use?

[JoeJ]

Weren't you just objecting to the idea of authorities such as guilds having any regulations of the use of magic?

No, I was saying that the guilds would not allow a law that requires somebody to have a permit to cast any spell.

[LudicSavant]

No, I was saying that the guilds would not allow a law that requires somebody to have a permit to cast any spell.

What are you talking about? Guilds love it if people need permission from them to do things.

I mean for cripes sake, guilds are the sorts to do things like "get armed thugs to storm your house because you were making cloth buttons."


"The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: 'If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild.' One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated.

Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the button makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the cloth-button makers. But the wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people's homes and wardrobes and fine and even arrest them on the streets if they are seen wearing these subversive goods."

[JoeJ]

What are you talking about? Guilds love it if people need permission from them to do things.

I mean for cripes sake, guilds are the sorts to do things like "get armed thugs to storm your house because you were making cloth buttons."

Guilds care if you're competing with them. If the minstrels in the city were organized into a guild and the operative sitting outside the palace getting ready to cast Enthrall had, for some reason, neglected to become a member, they would object that he was playing music and singing, not that he was casting spells. But the guards at the palace gate across the street wouldn't care in any case because they don't work for the minstrel's guild.

Casting Enthrall on somebody without their consent is illegal in most parts of my world, but casting spells in general is not.

[LudicSavant]

Casting Enthrall on somebody without their consent is illegal in most parts of my world, but casting spells in general is not.

If we're talking about spells like Enthrall, we're talking about spells that are cast targeting a creature, without their consent, by a stranger, in public, without knowing what they do.

And in this case, being allowed to do it within a stone's throw of the palace gates.


For a few casters, the threat may be equivalent to a car or truck, but in the vast majority of cases it's just a few cantrips.

"A few cantrips" can mean mental control or concentrated beams of fire that deals the damage of an average guy with a heavy military crossbow. Moreover, security measures aren't generally built around what "most people" do. Most people aren't criminals.

[JoeJ]

If we're talking about spells like Enthrall, we're talking about spells that are cast targeting a creature, without their consent, by a stranger, in public, without knowing what they do.

And in this case, being allowed to do it within a stone's throw of the palace gates.

Yeah, we've already agreed that casting Enthrall without consent is illegal. Whatever operation you're using it to distract from is probably illegal too.


Moreover, security measures aren't generally built around what "most people" do. Most people aren't criminals.

Which is why it makes no sense to ban unlicensed spell casting. Most people aren't criminals, and those who are criminals will simply ignore the requirement. No kingdom has anywhere close to the resources necessary to enforce such a law, and most of them don't want to turn into the kind of totalitarian police state that attempting to enforce it would require. In some settings there may not be that many spellcasters, but I'm looking at my world where it would be insane to try and stop people from casting.

It is interesting, though, that you have to postulate a specific social and legal structure to keep people from using a spell that is allegedly completely useless.

[LudicSavant]

Which is why it makes no sense to ban unlicensed spell casting. Most people aren't criminals, and those who are criminals will simply ignore the requirement. No kingdom has anywhere close to the resources necessary to enforce such a law, and most of them don't want to turn into the kind of totalitarian police state that attempting to enforce it would require. In some settings there may not be that many spellcasters, but I'm looking at my world where it would be insane to try and stop people from casting.

It is interesting, though, that you have to postulate a specific social and legal structure to keep people from using a spell that is allegedly completely useless.

I think you're veering off into strawman territory here.

- I didn't allege that it was completely useless. In fact I said that it wasn't. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23804006&postcount=81)
- I don't "have to postulate a specific social and legal structure," several ways the Enthrall plan could fail were provided by numerous posters.
- I did not postulate the banning of all unlicensed spellcasting, let alone for the purpose of making Enthrall stop working. Deathtongue said "the safe action would be to arrest people who cast spells on people without consent / knowing what the spells do in plain sight of guards," explained why he thought that, and then you claimed that would never be permitted, and I questioned why you would think that guilds would be so vehemently against permits and licenses.

[JoeJ]

I think you're veering off into strawman territory here.

- I didn't allege that it was completely useless. In fact I said that it wasn't. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23804006&postcount=81)

Fair enough. It was others who claimed the spell was useless.


- I don't "have to postulate a specific social and legal structure," several ways your plan could fail were provided.

It's good that it can fail. An evil plan that can't fail is a good indication that something in the game needs to be fixed. But if you think about what Enthrall is supposed to do, even if the spell fails in the way you suggest it could still be an operational success. Guards who go down the block to deal with a spellcasting minstrel are no longer at the gate. Those guards who stay at the gate are likely to be distracted watching to see if their fellows need help. Whatever operation Enthrall was intended to cover can probably still go ahead.

[Sigreid]

Just glad I'm not playing at a table that will have you attacked or arrested for being suspected of witchcraft (casting a spell or cantrip). I suppose it doesn't really matter what the rest of you do.

[JoeJ]

Just glad I'm not playing at a table that will have you attacked or arrested for being suspected of witchcraft (casting a spell or cantrip). I suppose it doesn't really matter what the rest of you do.

Context matters. Cast a spell for a yourself or a friend and you're okay. Cast a spell for a stranger and, depending on what spell it is, you might upset one of the guilds (if they find out). Cast a spell for money and you'd best either belong to the appropriate guild or hope they never find out, because the fines for that tend to be rather expensive.

[Sigreid]

Context matters. Cast a spell for a yourself or a friend and you're okay. Cast a spell for a stranger and, depending on what spell it is, you might upset one of the guilds (if they find out). Cast a spell for money and you'd best either belong to the appropriate guild or hope they never find out, because the fines for that tend to be rather expensive.

I'm referring specifically to this (in my opinion) weird notion that keeps coming up that in a world full of magic people will automatically assume any spell being cast is dangerous. For the other instances, really what your talking about is no different than anyone else illegally harming someone or participating in a business in a way that is against the law. The fact that they're using magic to do it is incidental.

[LudicSavant]

I'm referring specifically to this (in my opinion) weird notion that keeps coming up that in a world full of magic people will automatically assume any spell being cast is dangerous. For the other instances, really what your talking about is no different than anyone else illegally harming someone or participating in a business in a way that is against the law. The fact that they're using magic to do it is incidental.

I don't think it's being assumed that any spell being cast is dangerous, just that doing so in certain ways/contexts will raise eyebrows.

For instance:

It's the same reason why you are not allowed to inject other people with drugs or take their purses and sort their money, even if you only intend to help them. You don't know what they are doing to you or your stuff. And since they are not asking for permission, it's most likely something you don't want to be done to you.

or


For the performer, it depends, is the illusion a "light show" that creates an image that anyone looking at the obvious performance can see and knows is part of the performance, or is it the sort of illusion that affects the mind? There's a line in there that the latter crosses where these laws are in effect, because it's affecting the person directly. (The difference between psychedelic lighting as part of a concert, vs pumping drugs into the air at a concert.)

[MadBear]

If there's a way to view the spell that makes it functional, while still a bit weak, and a view that causes the spell to be useless, I'll go with option 1. The fact that for me the V, S are a bard playing their instrument and singing a song, wouldn't raise suspicion at all.

[sophontteks]

Conned is not attacked.
You said harmed. Being attacked is beyond the discussion of enthrall. It has nothing to do with the intent of the spell. I think they would realize if a spellcaster is attacking them right quick.


If there's a way to view the spell that makes it functional, while still a bit weak, and a view that causes the spell to be useless, I'll go with option 1. The fact that for me the V, S are a bard playing their instrument and singing a song, wouldn't raise suspicion at all.

Be careful with that ruling. The same bard will follow that logic and cast suggestion (which is only somatic) at every guard he meets.

[Aquillion]

Be careful with that ruling. The same bard will follow that logic and cast suggestion (which is only somatic) at every guard he meets.I think that's fine. Keep a few things in mind:

1. Suddenly breaking out your instrument and playing a song attracts attention. It's not something you can just do whenever you want (this is the main reason I feel "conceal spell as performance" is fine - it's not just an easy "hide spell" button like Subtle Spell; it has significant drawbacks.)

2. Most people are going to know, in a general sense, that Bards use their music for magical things. So if you sing a song and people suddenly start behaving in weird ways, you're going to fall under suspicion even if they don't know exactly what you did.

3. Suggestion still requires that you verbally speak the suggestion you make (this is true even if it's cast using Subtle Spell, by the way - I don't quite get why people think it's such a great spell to conceal.) If you want someone to attack their friends, you have to actually, verbally suggest that they attack their friends, loud enough for people to hear.

Bystanders may not know that you used magic, but they're going to see you playing a song and making a suggestion, and your target reacting, then they could reasonably understand that something is up, and you're still going to get some blame for anything the target does.

Also, just as a general side, I feel people in this thread are overestimating how obvious magic is. From the PHB:


Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.

The vast majority of spells have components, so it seems weird to add a hidden corollary to that of "but they'll have seen your gestures and chanting and will usually figure it out." The "Components" section, to me, backs that up - it describes components with an emphasis on "these are things that can prevent you from casting if you're unable to do them", not with any focus on "these are things that will attract attention."

Like... if spellcasting without subtle spell was meant to be blatant, then I don't think they would have worded the "perceptible effect" paragraph the same way.

Just for reference, the specific spell that they say "typically goes unnoticed" is almost certainly Detect Thoughts, which has the full set of VSM components. Make of that what you will; but I feel that it's really hard to reconcile that with "but if you cast Detect Thoughts in front of the king the guards will immediately know and will stab you."



In fact... honestly, actually reading the relevant rules again with an eye towards how hard spells are to notice has somewhat changed my mind here. The Detect Thoughts example seems to pretty decisively close the issue towards the RAI being "spellcasting is, by default, not noticed unless someone is actively looking for it, and possibly not noticed even then."

Yes, you could argue that it means "they don't know that you targeted them specifically, but they saw you cast a spell"; but... it just strikes me as a bit of a stretch. If it was supposed to be obvious by default when someone cast a VSM spell, that's something that really would have had to have been mentioned in the section that says that casting Detect Thoughts on someone "typically goes unnoticed."

Also, reviewing how specific the rules are about spellcasting going unnoticed and comparing it to other discussions has started to give me the impression that people have pushed the (mostly groundless) idea that spellcasting is blatant in order to make Subtle Spell and, therefore, Sorcerers more cool by reserving that for them alone. But I don't think anything in the text supports that - the component text is mostly about how Silence and the like can prevent you from casting, with no real implication that these gestures or words are attention-grabbing; while, much more importantly, the targeting text is clear that spellcasting is usually unnoticed unless it has an obvious effect (ie. spell components alone do not reveal that you cast a spell). And Subtle Spell has an extremely brief description that doesn't really imply the sorts of grand, unique powers people are attributing to it.

On reflection (especially given its low cost) I think it's meant to allow you to cast in Silence or when bound or the like, and not to hide your spellcasting (which already, again, "usually goes unnoticed" by default.)

[MadBear]

Be careful with that ruling. The same bard will follow that logic and cast suggestion (which is only somatic) at every guard he meets.

The difference here being that suggestion is the bard literally commanding a person to do something vs a bard putting on a performance. Then again, I find D&D works way better when you go at it through a pragmatic view, rather then a strict RAW view requiring every detail and edge rule to align with everything else.

[sophontteks]

I think that's fine. Keep a few things in mind:

1. Suddenly breaking out your instrument and playing a song attracts attention. It's not something you can just do whenever you want (this is the main reason I feel "conceal spell as performance" is fine - it's not just an easy "hide spell" button like Subtle Spell; it has significant drawbacks.)

2. Most people are going to know, in a general sense, that Bards use their music for magical things. So if you sing a song and people suddenly start behaving in weird ways, you're going to fall under suspicion even if they don't know exactly what you did.

3. Suggestion still requires that you verbally speak the suggestion you make (this is true even if it's cast using Subtle Spell, by the way - I don't quite get why people think it's such a great spell to conceal.) If you want someone to attack their friends, you have to actually, verbally suggest that they attack their friends, loud enough for people to hear.

Bystanders may not know that you used magic, but they're going to see you playing a song and making a suggestion, and your target reacting, then they could reasonably understand that something is up, and you're still going to get some blame for anything the target does.

Also, just as a general side, I feel people in this thread are overestimating how obvious magic is. From the PHB:



The vast majority of spells have components, so it seems weird to add a hidden corollary to that of "but they'll have seen your gestures and chanting and will usually figure it out." The "Components" section, to me, backs that up - it describes components with an emphasis on "these are things that can prevent you from casting if you're unable to do them", not with any focus on "these are things that will attract attention."

Like... if spellcasting without subtle spell was meant to be blatant, then I don't think they would have worded the "perceptible effect" paragraph the same way.

Just for reference, the specific spell that they say "typically goes unnoticed" is almost certainly Detect Thoughts, which has the full set of VSM components. Make of that what you will; but I feel that it's really hard to reconcile that with "but if you cast Detect Thoughts in front of the king the guards will immediately know and will stab you."



In fact... honestly, actually reading the relevant rules again with an eye towards how hard spells are to notice has somewhat changed my mind here. The Detect Thoughts example seems to pretty decisively close the issue towards the RAI being "spellcasting is, by default, not noticed unless someone is actively looking for it, and possibly not noticed even then."

Yes, you could argue that it means "they don't know that you targeted them specifically, but they saw you cast a spell"; but... it just strikes me as a bit of a stretch. If it was supposed to be obvious by default when someone cast a VSM spell, that's something that really would have had to have been mentioned in the section that says that casting Detect Thoughts on someone "typically goes unnoticed."

Also, reviewing how specific the rules are about spellcasting going unnoticed and comparing it to other discussions has started to give me the impression that people have pushed the (mostly groundless) idea that spellcasting is blatant in order to make Subtle Spell and, therefore, Sorcerers more cool by reserving that for them alone. But I don't think anything in the text supports that - the component text is mostly about how Silence and the like can prevent you from casting, with no real implication that these gestures or words are attention-grabbing; while, much more importantly, the targeting text is clear that spellcasting is usually unnoticed unless it has an obvious effect (ie. spell components alone do not reveal that you cast a spell). And Subtle Spell has an extremely brief description that doesn't really imply the sorts of grand, unique powers people are attributing to it.

On reflection (especially given its low cost) I think it's meant to allow you to cast in Silence or when bound or the like, and not to hide your spellcasting (which already, again, "usually goes unnoticed" by default.)
You are mixing up rules about spell effects with rules about casting. V and S are meant to giveaway that a spell is being cast. They may not know what the spell is, or what the effects are, but spellcasting is a very obvious ritual separate from playing music and singing. We can't have bards circumventing counterspell and getting subtle for free on every casting because their spellcasting is indistinguishable from playing music. That doesn't make sense.

Opponents need to be able to react to a spell before the effect unless the caster is hiding his casting somehow. This is the same way martial character's work. If a martial character tries to attack an opponent in plain sight, you roll initiative before rolling the attack or damage. Casters should not get free surprise rounds unless they are actually hiding their spellcasting in some meaningful manner.


The difference here being that suggestion is the bard literally commanding a person to do something vs a bard putting on a performance. Then again, I find D&D works way better when you go at it through a pragmatic view, rather then a strict RAW view requiring every detail and edge rule to align with everything else.

For sure, but the discussion is about the problems with enthrall as written. If I wanted to use enthrall in game I'd talk to my DM about it beforehand to see if they can lax how obvious casting the spell is. General rules that allow this spell to work in public have unintended consequences with other more powerful spells. Suggestion may involve a command, but phantasmal force doesn't, along with many other very dangerous spells. If I can hide my casting of enemies abound the same way I can hide my casting of enthrall, I could practically assassinate any character without consequence, turning them into raging brutes until the authorities take them away and try them for manslaughter.

[SpanielBear]

(EDIT: Cut for brevity)

Opponents need to be able to react to a spell before the effect unless the caster is hiding his casting somehow. This is the same way martial character's work. If a martial character tries to attack an opponent in plain sight, you roll initiative before rolling the attack or damage. Casters should not get free surprise rounds unless they are actually hiding their spellcasting in some meaningful manner.



Wasn't there another long thread about readying actions vs spells where the consensus seemed to be that even if the action is readied *even if it is known absolutely that a spell is going to be cast*, no action is quick enough to prevent the spell going off. The argument being that a regular action shouldn't be able to supplant Counterspell and make that third level spell obsolete.

So which should it be? Either a spell is cast (assuming casting time of one action) before a guard gets to react, or else anyone should be able to follow the same logic and chuck a stone at the level 20 wizard to prevent them from casting... well, anything.

For myself, I'd say that a caster trying to be sneaky about spell casting who doesn't have subtle spell gets to try and make either a stealth or sleight of hand check, with a DC tied to the magical nous of the opposing party, be that a crowd, or a guard, or whatever. Then regardless if the spell works or not, either the spell-caster covered himself with a song or fake coughing fit, or the guards saw through it and consequences happen. Subtle spell is still valuable because there is no chance of detection at all.

[sophontteks]

Wasn't there another long thread about readying actions vs spells where the consensus seemed to be that even if the action is readied *even if it is known absolutely that a spell is going to be cast*, no action is quick enough to prevent the spell going off. The argument being that a regular action shouldn't be able to supplant Counterspell and make that third level spell obsolete.

So which should it be? Either a spell is cast (assuming casting time of one action) before a guard gets to react, or else anyone should be able to follow the same logic and chuck a stone at the level 20 wizard to prevent them from casting... well, anything.

For myself, I'd say that a caster trying to be sneaky about spell casting who doesn't have subtle spell gets to try and make either a stealth or sleight of hand check, with a DC tied to the magical nous of the opposing party, be that a crowd, or a guard, or whatever. Then regardless if the spell works or not, either the spell-caster covered himself with a song or fake coughing fit, or the guards saw through it and consequences happen. Subtle spell is still valuable because there is no chance of detection at all.
No one should be allowed a free surprise round. If you hide your casting, its no different then hiding your attack. Just like hiding an attack, this should be far more difficult if you are just doing it right in front of their faces.

So, no I have no problems with requiring a roll. Subtle is very strong because it doesn't require a roll.

That said, I don't agree with this concensus that people can not react to a spell being cast. Hostile actions involve a roll for initiative. If a hostile can react to a physical attack, they can react to a spell.

[Yuroch Kern]

Maybe I overlooked the answer in this thread, but why exactly is the caster of Enthrall always obvious and a threat? Doesn't failing a save against most subtle-type magic kinda negate suspicion? And why can't the caster hide for the moment and wait for these magic-savvy guards to find him while the rest of the party sneaks in? And when they find the caster, why isn't he acting/looking like an old blind fool babbling out loud?

[sophontteks]

Maybe I overlooked the answer in this thread, but why exactly is the caster of Enthrall always obvious and a threat? Doesn't failing a save against most subtle-type magic kinda negate suspicion? And why can't the caster hide for the moment and wait for these magic-savvy guards to find him while the rest of the party sneaks in? And when they find the caster, why isn't he acting/looking like an old blind fool babbling out loud?
Find him?
You can't hide while casting this without subtle due to the verbal and somatic components, and the weaving distracting words in the description, and the limited 60 foot range, and the requirement that they can hear you...and that you must see them.

[Tanarii]

Maybe I overlooked the answer in this thread, but why exactly is the caster of Enthrall always obvious and a threat?
The obvious part is because it requires a V and S component, which is ruled by SA (although I can't remember if it's the compendium or merely a Crawford tweet) as separate from any speaking or gestures the spell text itself requires.

Of course, a DM might still rule that you can attempt a check to disguise either, or a creature might need to make a check to perceive them against a fixed DC based on ambient environmental conditions (background noise or hard to see), distraction or distance.

The threat thing is personal interpretation of some posters, which makes spell casting automatically a hostile action in their campaigns.

[JoeJ]

Maybe I overlooked the answer in this thread, but why exactly is the caster of Enthrall always obvious and a threat? Doesn't failing a save against most subtle-type magic kinda negate suspicion? And why can't the caster hide for the moment and wait for these magic-savvy guards to find him while the rest of the party sneaks in? And when they find the caster, why isn't he acting/looking like an old blind fool babbling out loud?

Entrall, followed by Sanctuary, then dodge while running around to keep the guards chasing you until the infiltration team gets in. After that, presumably you had an escape plan worked out.

[LudicSavant]

Entrall, followed by Sanctuary, then dodge while running around to keep the guards chasing you until the infiltration team gets in. After that, presumably you had an escape plan worked out.

Why do you need the 2nd level spell slot for Enthrall in this plan?

[JoeJ]

Why do you need the 2nd level spell slot for Enthrall in this plan?

Because it's a 2nd level spell?

[LudicSavant]

Because it's a 2nd level spell?

JoeJ, the question being asked isn't "what level is Enthrall," it's "why do you even need to spend that 2nd level spell to accomplish this plan?"

If you just want to make guards chase you, there are ways to do that without wasting an extremely valuable 2nd level spell slot, preparation, and known slot for a Bard or Warlock.

[JoeJ]

JoeJ, the question being asked isn't "what level is Enthrall," it's "why do you even need the 2nd level spell, Enthrall, to accomplish this plan?"

If you just want to make guards chase you, there are ways to do that without spending a 2nd level spell.

Enthrall affects everybody the caster chooses within range. I'm assuming the guards aren't complete idiots, so they're not going to leave the gate unguarded while everybody runs out to chase some spellcaster. The ones who stay at the gate are still affected by the spell.

[Yuroch Kern]

Find him?
You can't hide while casting this without subtle due to the verbal and somatic components, and the weaving distracting words in the description, and the limited 60 foot range, and the requirement that they can hear you...and that you must see them.

You can hide first. You only need see THEM. They would either a) stare intently at the spot the noise is coming from, "ignoring" what's going on next to/behind them, or b) one or more abandoning post to investigate. Either way, the ruse would work outside a successful save.

[LudicSavant]

The ones who stay at the gate are still affected by the spell.

Actually, the spell ends as soon as you stop speaking to them, or the instant they stop hearing you.

[JoeJ]

Actually, the spell ends if the instant you stop speaking to them.

But there's nothing that says it ends if you cast another spell, even one with a V component.

edit: Actually, the spell description doesn't say it ends if you stop speaking. It says it ends "if you are incapacitated or can no longer speak," or if the target can no longer hear you.

[Yuroch Kern]

The obvious part is because it requires a V and S component, which is ruled by SA (although I can't remember if it's the compendium or merely a Crawford tweet) as separate from any speaking or gestures the spell text itself requires.

Of course, a DM might still rule that you can attempt a check to disguise either, or a creature might need to make a check to perceive them against a fixed DC based on ambient environmental conditions (background noise or hard to see), distraction or distance.

The threat thing is personal interpretation of some posters, which makes spell casting automatically a hostile action in their campaigns.

Yeah, I exploited that sentiment with a human fighter that spoke elvish. Would pretend like he was casting so the enemy would target him and leave the actual casters a couple rounds to buff. L just feel that despite having to speak The Latin, there is this weird idea it must be shouted, rather than merely, firmly, stated clearly in conversational volumes. Foci would also make it a little more difficult to identify a spell too, right? Holding a staff in a weird way is not the tell tale bat guano of the Fireball, neh?

[LudicSavant]

But there's nothing that says it ends if you cast another spell, even one with a V component.

edit: Actually, the spell description doesn't say it ends if you stop speaking. It says it ends "if you are incapacitated or can no longer speak," or if the target can no longer hear you.

If the target can no longer hear you speaking the distracting string of words.

[JoeJ]

If the target can no longer hear you speaking the distracting string of words.

You're still speaking when you cast Sanctuary. If it was intended that the spell ends when you cast another V spell, it would say so.

[Yuroch Kern]

Entrall, followed by Sanctuary, then dodge while running around to keep the guards chasing you until the infiltration team gets in. After that, presumably you had an escape plan worked out.

I kinda figured Invisibility to just keep moving around while keeping them in range of Enthrall. It is it's own escape plan.

[JoeJ]

I kinda figured Invisibility to just keep moving around while keeping them in range of Enthrall. It is it's own escape plan.

Nice. And that doesn't even require accessing a different spell list (which isn't very hard, but still).

[LudicSavant]

You're still speaking when you cast Sanctuary. If it was intended that the spell ends when you cast another V spell, it would say so.

The problem I had with your plan isn't Sanctuary's Verbal components. You brought that up yourself.


I kinda figured Invisibility to just keep moving around while keeping them in range of Enthrall. It is it's own escape plan.

They already have Disadvantage to hit you if you're using Dodge. And they can hear your location because of Enthrall. Why are we using yet another 2nd level spell slot for this plan that didn't require any spell slots at all?

[Yuroch Kern]

If the target can no longer hear you speaking the distracting string of words.

This thread has clearly defined casting a spell with verbal component as a distracting string of words. The spell does not otherwise end if you cast another, only if you stop speaking or they can't hear you.

[JoeJ]

The problem I had with your plan isn't Sanctuary's Verbal components. You brought that up yourself.

Then what did you think would cause the caster to stop speaking?

(Obviously, all this is assuming that one or more of the guards is chasing the caster to begin with, which depends on their having successfully identified the spell.)

[Astofel]

I agree that verbal and somatic components should be pretty obvious to anyone who can see or hear them, and if they know anything about how spells are cast they'll probably pick up on what's happening. I also think it's a shame that makes many of the social-oriented spells much, much worse. These spells should be able to work for people who aren't subtle sorcerers.

As for a guard reacting to casting a spell, I think that's a tricky situation. Imagine there's a wizard casting a spell, and it could be either Enhance Ability, which is fairly harmless, or Scorching Ray, which isn't. There's no way for a guard to know which spell is being cast unless he's taken a spell identification course or something, and even if he has he's used his reaction to identify the spell so he can't do anything about the casting. It's like if someone reaches into the inside pocket of a coat, and what they pull out could be either a drink bottle or a gun, but if it's a gun they've already shot someone with it by the time anyone can do anything about it. I would rule that in places that are less magically inclined public spellcasting is disallowed and will get you fined, arrested if used violently, but in more magical cities you'd need some kind of spellcasting badge that acts as a license to cast.

[Yuroch Kern]

They already have Disadvantage to hit you if you're using Dodge. And they can hear your location because of Enthrall. Why are we using yet another 2nd level spell slot for this plan that didn't require any spell slots at all?

Because combo effects? The true power of some spells can be found with what you prepare with them. Fireball is a lot more useful in conjunction with Protection from fire on your melee warriors, as a basic example. Spell slots are meant to be used, for most play styles at least. Dodge is free at the cost of your action every round. Hearing is not seeing, so they can only try to target your area if they can't pinpoint you. There was a debate about dropping Invisible opponents dropping caltrops/bearings as to if that was an attack or just dropping something, so there's that to consider. Also, all this happens if they actually abandon post. Invisilbility gives the option to Dash, Dodge does not.

[LudicSavant]

Then what did you think would cause the caster to stop speaking?

I didn't. I thought that the ones left at the gate would stop hearing you if you led them on a merry chase of sufficient distance to actually split the guard groups. And that if your plan was to just fight all the guards, then the "Enthrall" component seems rather unnecessary (and risks tipping your hand as to what you're planning).

You came up with this whole "Sanctuary Verbal Components" thing all on your own.

Invisilbility gives the option to Dash, Dodge does not.

If you're dashing away, then the people who are left behind at the gate no longer hear your string of distracting words.

Also, it seems to me like you and JoeJ are investing more and more resources and taking more and more risks, but not increasing the rewards for success.

[Yuroch Kern]

I didn't. I thought that the ones left at the gate would stop hearing you if you led them on a merry chase of sufficient distance to actually split the guard groups. And that if your plan was to just fight all the guards, then the "Enthrall" component seems rather unnecessary (and risks tipping your hand as to what you're planning).

You came up with this whole "Sanctuary Verbal Components" thing all on your own.


If you're dashing away, then the people who are left behind at the gate no longer hear your string of distracting words.

Away? Only if you beat feet. Running around in range is what you're doing. as long as you wind up within 60', you can stay 5 or more feet away from their Move action. If anyone is still at the post, they are still focused on their buddies chasing...what ARE you guys running after?

[LudicSavant]

Away? Only if you beat feet. Running around in range is what you're doing. In which case you're probably not actually splitting the guards. The palace garrison opens fire. And the alarm goes up for the whole palace that they're dealing with an Invisible spellcaster and is on guard for any infiltration attempts. If you want people to sneak into the palace, it's probably best to not make the palace garrison think they are being attacked by illusionists.

This plan seems like it increases the risk and the resource investment, but not the reward.

[Yuroch Kern]

In which case you're probably not actually splitting the guards. The palace garrison opens fire. And the alarm goes up for the whole palace that they're dealing with an Invisible spellcaster and is on guard for any infiltration attempts.

This plan seems like it increases the risk and the resource investment, but not the reward.

Hmmm, very drastic. They open fire on something they can't see, possibly hitting their own buddies. Also, instant messaging is available? Cool. The guards have either been split for at least 3 rounds, if they are all not either maintaining their post wondering what's up or all searching for that maddening babble. Meanwhile, the rest of the party is gone. The guards are automatically savvy to all magical infiltration spells, deduces Invisibility, and automatically assumes others, even though they really have no indication there are. Perhaps in a high level adventure, but this kind of scenario is great if there aren't that many guards to begin with. What kind of scenario are you even envisioning? Fort Knox?

[Yuroch Kern]

Besides, since it's a subtle-type spell, an initial disguise is probably better. People may just harass and get you to shut up, which is still probably 2-3 rounds of stealth. It doesn't last very long, so whatever you squeeze out.

[JoeJ]

I didn't. I thought that the ones left at the gate would stop hearing you if you led them on a merry chase of sufficient distance to actually split the guard groups. And that if your plan was to just fight all the guards, then the "Enthrall" component seems rather unnecessary (and risks tipping your hand as to what you're planning).

Nobody is fighting anybody. The caster is keeping the guards distracted is all. That's specifically why the chosen spell is one that doesn't, by itself, do any actual harm to anybody; even if it's identified it doesn't justify using deadly force in response. The fallback plan in case one of them identifies the spell involves running around, not running away.

[LudicSavant]

Hmmm, very drastic. They open fire on something they can't see, possibly hitting their own buddies. Also, instant messaging is available? Cool. The guards have either been split for at least 3 rounds, if they are all not either maintaining their post wondering what's up or all searching for that maddening babble. Meanwhile, the rest of the party is gone. The guards are automatically savvy to all magical infiltration spells, deduces Invisibility, and automatically assumes others, even though they really have no indication there are. Perhaps in a high level adventure, but this kind of scenario is great if there aren't that many guards to begin with. What kind of scenario are you even envisioning? Fort Knox?

I am envisioning the scenario that was specifically mentioned as the one being discussed earlier in the thread. A guarded palace in a magical world.

And you are apparently envisioning that you will run around in circles weaving a continuous string of distracting words while invisible... and that the guards won't raise the alarm?


Nobody is fighting anybody. The caster is keeping the guards distracted is all. That's specifically why the chosen spell is one that doesn't, by itself, do any actual harm to anybody; even if it's identified it doesn't justify using deadly force in response. The fallback plan in case one of them identifies the spell involves running around, not running away.

If nobody is fighting anybody, why are you using a spell slot on "Sanctuary" and your actions on "Dodge"?

[JoeJ]

If nobody is fighting anybody, why are you using a spell slot on "Sanctuary"?

Because one of the guards is approaching and might try and grab the caster.

I meant not fighting in the colloquial sense. That doesn't mean that it's not being run using the combat rules.

[LudicSavant]

Because one of the guards is approaching and might try and grab the caster.

I don't believe you, because the Dodge action doesn't affect grapples.

[JoeJ]

I don't believe you, because the Dodge action doesn't affect grapples.

You don't believe me? So I'm lying about what I think?

Fine. We're done.

[Yuroch Kern]

I am envisioning the scenario that was specifically mentioned as the one being discussed earlier in the thread. A guarded palace in a magical world.

And you are apparently envisioning that you will run around in circles weaving a continuous string of distracting words while invisible... and that the guards won't raise the alarm?



If nobody is fighting anybody, why are you using a spell slot on "Sanctuary" and your actions on "Dodge"?

They can try. "Wait, where's our backup?" "Huh? Didn't see you Sarge." "Are they still at the post? Go check." "Can't you see them from here? Just yell it at them!"..."Hey, did you hear something, Bob?" "What? Sorry, that weird babble is getting irritating, hopefully Sarge and the others shut it up" "We should raise the alarm." Huh? Did you say something?"...:smallbiggrin:

[JoeJ]

They can try. "Wait, where's our backup?" "Huh? Didn't see you Sarge." "Are they still at the post? Go check." "Can't you see them from here? Just yell it at them!"..."Hey, did you hear something, Bob?" "What? Sorry, that weird babble is getting irritating, hopefully Sarge and the others shut it up" "We should raise the alarm." Huh? Did you say something?"...:smallbiggrin:

Not to mention that the spell was not cast specifically on the guards, it was cast on the crowd. Under those circumstances, anybody who identifies the spell and knows what it does will most likely assume that the caster is partners with a pickpocket who is using the distraction to relieve people of the burden of their heavy wallets (and in most cases they'd be right).

[Yuroch Kern]

Not to mention that the spell was not cast specifically on the guards, it was cast on the crowd. Under those circumstances, anybody who identifies the spell and knows what it does will most likely assume that the caster is partners with a pickpocket who is using the distraction to relieve people of the burden of their heavy wallets (and in most cases they'd be right).

True enough. The dice may not favor the caster at all, the inherent risk of saving throws and opposed skill checks. This why most subtle magic is best done under cover of some kind. Casting it while looking at a crowd from behind a curtain while the announcer drowns out your verbal components will totally conceal the casting, while casting it from behind cover about 45 feet away may only make indistinguishable noise give any kind of position away, rather than actual words to be identified as The Latin.

[LudicSavant]

You don't believe me?

I do not believe that grapples are a reason to use the Dodge action.

[sophontteks]

You can hide first. You only need see THEM. They would either a) stare intently at the spot the noise is coming from, "ignoring" what's going on next to/behind them, or b) one or more abandoning post to investigate. Either way, the ruse would work outside a successful save.
You can't hide first for the reasons I listed. Both the string of words and the verbal component break stealth. You are not hiding.

[Dark.Revenant]

To me, it seems like the people who defend Enthrall are the same sorts who'll defend just about anything in the official rules.

Enthrall itself is the sort of spell that seeks to try to replace a skill check with a spell slot. The problem is those types of spells are pretty awful, and generally speaking make a poor substitute for, you know, just letting a party member have the spotlight. Enthrall is even worse in that regard, because it's only available for Bard and Warlock, who most assuredly will have plenty of success with their Charisma skill checks already. It just strikes me as a spell that could have been cut from the game and no one would have cared one iota.

[Yuroch Kern]

You can't hide first for the reasons I listed. Both the string of words and the verbal component break stealth. You are not hiding.

Okay then. I never said to maintain stealth as a skill check. The idea is the first indication is if they make their perception to hear the casting in order to even identify it being The Latin. Afterwards, it is a matter of what is the babbling. If you are behind visual cover of some kind, they cannot see any somatic or material component at all, unless the casting requires something that is bigger.There is a form of stealth for every sense. There was a reason it used to be Hide in Shadows and Move Silently. Also, until they get closer, the actual square this babble is coming from is unknown, as the casting only requires an initial viewing of the targets, but then is only maintained by audio. This would presumably make an approach by your targets not a Dash, so you have a round maybe to rehearse the next phase of the ruse.

[Yuroch Kern]

To me, it seems like the people who defend Enthrall are the same sorts who'll defend just about anything in the official rules.

Enthrall itself is the sort of spell that seeks to try to replace a skill check with a spell slot. The problem is those types of spells are pretty awful, and generally speaking make a poor substitute for, you know, just letting a party member have the spotlight. Enthrall is even worse in that regard, because it's only available for Bard and Warlock, who most assuredly will have plenty of success with their Charisma skill checks already. It just strikes me as a spell that could have been cut from the game and no one would have cared one iota.

You're not entirely wrong. However, I only present scenarios that I've been in. Spells can be incredibly niche, and others are so well known that everyone has a counter prepared, like Fireball and Invisibility. Those spells are perhaps useless in those regards and an argument can be done against them as viable spells.

[sophontteks]

Okay then. I never said to maintain stealth as a skill check. The idea is the first indication is if they make their perception to hear the casting in order to even identify it being The Latin. Afterwards, it is a matter of what is the babbling. If you are behind visual cover of some kind, they cannot see any somatic or material component at all, unless the casting requires something that is bigger.There is a form of stealth for every sense. There was a reason it used to be Hide in Shadows and Move Silently. Also, until they get closer, the actual square this babble is coming from is unknown, as the casting only requires an initial viewing of the targets, but then is only maintained by audio. This would presumably make an approach by your targets not a Dash, so you have a round maybe to rehearse the next phase of the ruse.
None of this makes sense. Are you using stealth or not? Stealth is a skill check.

You can not stealth and use verbal components. It breaks stealth. They know where you are unless they are deaf. You also have to see them when you cast, so they can see you too. You have to speak to maintain the spell, so you can't hide after casting either. They will be able to triangulate your position within a 5 cubic foot area with their ears alone effortlessly.

[Yuroch Kern]

None of this makes sense. Are you using stealth or not? Stealth is a skill check.

You can not stealth and use verbal components. It breaks stealth. They know where you are unless they are deaf. You also have to see them when you cast, so they can see you too. You have to speak to maintain the spell, so you can't hide after casting either. They will be able to triangulate your position within a 5 cubic foot area with their ears alone effortlessly.

Stealth gets you in position. Casting itself may or may not break stealth, but the spell itself will. Speaking does not always break stealth. There are range and cover considerations, and as I said, you do not necessarily have to shout The Latin unless the spell says so. The spell specifically will, as the babble must be heard but are you saying that a person 30 to 60 feet away can identify clearly what is being said by a casual-level volume? Also, yeah, Stealth is lost, but they still can't see you either. They will have to approach to confirm anything. You are now obscured. You are not silent. But that is one of the points of the spell. This is a decoy spell that is successful even if they don't move. if they do, then plan B. Finding you will be easy, but they will still have to go it. They cannot auto-locate you unless there is only one tree/rock out there. The noise is coming from "over-there", unless they succeed well on that Perception check.

[Aquillion]

You can not stealth and use verbal components. It breaks stealth. They know where you are unless they are deaf.Not automatically true; it's a DM call, just like making any other sound in stealth. Depending on the distance, how well-hidden you are, what other noises there are in the area, and so on, it could reveal you immediately, give advantage to find you, let the enemies know there's someone in the area (but not exactly where), or even reveal nothing at all because they failed to hear you.

Again, from the rules for spellcasting:

Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.The "attempt to read a creature's thoughts" spell (which it says "typically goes unnoticed") is Detect Thoughts; it has verbal, somatic, and material components.

Verbal components attracting any attention at all is a DM call - it's not an unreasonable one, but presenting it as automatically breaking stealth has no rules basis whatsoever.

You can do something like hide in the shadows and taunt your enemies as they hunt for you just fine. It makes logical sense and fits the definition of something that would allow a stealth check. It might be more difficult or give your enemies advantage, but it doesn't automatically cause you to break stealth.


You also have to see them when you cast, so they can see you too.Completely absurd. If that were true, it wouldn't be possible to observe people from stealth at all, which is plainly untrue. This one isn't a DM call at all (unless the DM wants to invent random houserules), this is just flatly wrong.


You have to speak to maintain the spell, so you can't hide after casting either.
Of course you can hide. It might be more difficult, but nothing about noise auto-negates stealth; it just makes it harder.


They will be able to triangulate your position within a 5 cubic foot area with their ears alone effortlessly.With a successful Wisdom (Perception) check opposed by my Dexterity (Stealth) check, definitely!

Otherwise no. Figuring out where someone is by hearing alone is the definition of something that calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check. Depending on the circumstances you might give one side or the other an advantage (and they would reasonably know that someone is there, though not exactly where), but your implication that they could just bypass the Wisdom (Perception) check because "you're making noise" defeats the entire purpose of having a Wisdom (Perception) check as the defined method for tracking things by sound.

The difficulty would of course depend on the situation, granted, and sometimes it's trivial - but tracking down someone who constantly mocks you in a dark, echoing warehouse full of shelves and boxes is absolutely the sort of thing that calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check opposed by a Dexterity (Stealth) check.

Here's how I'd rule it. Generally speaking, if you're being stealthy and do something that might betray your location - slipping, dropping something noisy, speaking, etc - it allows anyone nearby another Wisdom (Perception) check against your stealth to find you. If you're speaking constantly, they get to make a check every round until they succeed. And if they identify your location but don't have visual contact to your location, you can try and reestablish stealth on your next turn (if you succeed, they know your last location up until that point.) Also, even if they fail the check, they would probably know your general direction based on how well they do.

This allows for eg. the "mocking them in a dark warehouse" scene, while making it very risky to make noise while being stealthy (since unless you're absurdly skilled compared to your pursuers, they're realistically going to find you within a few rounds.)


...note that none of this makes Enthrall not-terrible; you could hide and taunt people and lead them away without the need for a spell.

[sophontteks]

Tell your friend to hide up to 60 feet away from you. Have him speak loud enough so that you can hear him and tell him he has to be looking at you while he does it. If you can not immediately tell exactly where your friend is, you are deaf and blind. That is the only possible explanation.

But sure, you have the most lax DM on earth who will let you hide while shouting Kumbaya. At this point I don't see why distracting the guards is even nessesary. Just walk by them. If they can't find someone chanting at them, they aren't going to find anyone actually trying to be stealthy.

[SpanielBear]

Tell your friend to hide up to 60 feet away from you. Have him speak loud enough so that you can hear him and tell him he has to be looking at you while he does it. If you can not immediately tell exactly where your friend is, you are deaf and blind. That is the only possible explanation.

But sure, you have the most lax DM on earth who will let you hide while shouting Kumbaya. At this point I don't see why distracting the guards is even nessesary. Just walk by them. If they can't find someone chanting at them, they aren't going to find anyone actually trying to be stealthy.

Or it's dark

Or it's a forest

Or it's a crowded street

Or there's music playing in the background

Or I'm not starting out actively expecting to look for someone, so I am surprised by the noise before I can react

Or they are someone with skills developed to the point where they are Powerful Characters (as opposed to Normally Powered Characters)

[Yuroch Kern]

I wonder if you can combine Enthrall with Message...

Also, I made a slight error in my tactics. You technically DON'T need to maintain 60' feet, as spell effects after they are cast do not care about range unless specifically stated. So it can be combined with Thaumaturgy for a possible 180' post-casting maintenance range.

[Yuroch Kern]

Tell your friend to hide up to 60 feet away from you. Have him speak loud enough so that you can hear him and tell him he has to be looking at you while he does it. If you can not immediately tell exactly where your friend is, you are deaf and blind. That is the only possible explanation.

But sure, you have the most lax DM on earth who will let you hide while shouting Kumbaya. At this point I don't see why distracting the guards is even nessesary. Just walk by them. If they can't find someone chanting at them, they aren't going to find anyone actually trying to be stealthy.

Find that cricket in the grass about 10 feet away from you. It's loud and just sitting there, so it should be easy.

[sophontteks]

Find that cricket in the grass about 10 feet away from you. It's loud and just sitting there, so it should be easy.

You be you. It's like playing a typical stealth game on the PC, where the AI is basically braindead. I still have no idea why you need to enthrall NPCs this incapable, but have at it. Its your game, play how you want.

[Zezu]

Its purpose is to give enemies disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks to notice anyone but you, for one minute.

But:

You can already do that without wasting a spell slot, just spending your action by being distracting; disadvantage and advantage are situational. Yes, it's not strictly spelled out, but that sort of "I sneak past", "And I act as a distraction!" is exactly the sort of thing the advantage / disadvantage system is for.
It doesn't work on creatures that can be charmed.
They get a Wisdom save, which they wouldn't if you did this without magic.
They get advantage on their Wisdom save if you're already in a fight.
Seriously, why are there so many limitations on a spell that does so little? This spell could just automatically apply disadvantage, with no save or limitations, and it would still be completely terrible.
Did I mention it's a 2nd level spell? As written, this would be worthless even as a cantrip. (And most cantrips make better distractions anyway.)

Am I missing something? There's a lot of weak spells in the books, sure, but this one is just shockingly bad. The only purpose it seems to have is to make it harder to find good spells. I wouldn't even call it a trap option, since it's so glaringly, obviously terrible that nobody is likely to fall for it.

I think this spell is powerful.

I view it like {scrubbed} or a filibuster. Something similar to: Hypnotic Pattern (except a 2nd level spell, auditory not visual, with a 60 foot radius, without concentration, where you can target "creatures of your choice" not affecting your allies), or Ancestral Guardian (except for 1 minute, not one round) or Unwavering Mark (except many creatures within a 60 foot radius of you) or Compelled Duel (except no concentration and many creatures). Obviously there are differences between these effects and Enthrall, I am just pointing out battlefield control similarities. My interpretation is that it clearly states that it is a one-time save just like Hypnotic Pattern. Even if you or your allies were previously attacking some of the targets, your targets still might not notice others since they still have to make a save at advantage. The difference is that the targets are not incapacitated and might attack you depending on the circumstances. Additionally, they might perceive someone else every round that they might attempt to notice something else, but the next round the enthralled targets would once again turn their almost undivided attention to you. The targets do not know you are targeting them. I would describe it as a singing a song, humming a mesmerizing tune, a filibuster, or telling a tale. The enthralled target is like a kid playing a video game with head phones on.

The out of combat uses has been described earlier. In combat, you can use it to help control the battle field. Acting like a tank, you can draw all the affected target’s attacks while your allies pick off opponents one by one, like one would use Hypnotic Pattern. Let me also give my character background, my character is a Tiefling Sorcerer Warlock (Warcaster Feat, Subtle Spell, Quicken Spell & Devil's sight) and has a 23 AC along with spells such as Shield, Counterspell, Darkness (concentration), Mirror Image, Misty Step and Dimension Door. Depending on the situation, I can use sorcery points to cast it without verbal or somatic components while being in or out of magical Darkness (adversaries are at disadvantage to hit with my Devil’s Sight). I can also have Mirror Image up and the ability to cast Shield or Counterspell as additional defenses.

In combat, my hope is precisely that the opponents will hear me singing/humming my Enthrall verbal component and attack me as a tanking strategy. So this spell’s in combat use is for locking people down from attacking others. The spell reads "to perceive any other creature other than you" - perceive as in to become aware of through the senses (as defined in the dictionary), in other words, the do not see, hear, feel, smell or taste (ha ha) others (?better than Improved Invisibility). In my mind this is the keyword - “perceive” others. The spell uses the mechanic of Wisdom Perception check one time to see if any of the targets will sense anyone else but me and my magical song, melody or filibuster. Kind of like you are making all of your allies invisible, silent, odorless, etc. to the affected targets because they are enthralled by you (i.e. only perceiving you). Thus, out of combat or if you can tank in combat, I think this spell is unbelievable powerful because of the following: only second level, single save, 120 foot diameter battlefield control without concentration, you choose who is affected, opponents can’t shake or attack the enthralled out of their stupor, next round all enthralled targets turn their attention back to you if they happened to noticed anyone else, and it has out of combat utility!

[Zezu]

See, I have one issue with that particular analogy. Magic is less a car, and more like a rifle. Would you get nervous is someone was openly carrying a rifle down the street? Even if it an open carry state, and there are no laws against it, most people would get concerned, and officers tend to get concerned. Sure, magic is a tool, but there are more spells designed to enthrall, charm, harm, trick, and kill then anything else.

I would be very surprised if a guard didn't get suspicious the moment someone began casting a spell in an area like that.

Disagree. Rifles would never magically heal someone or name just about any other spell that has utility or ameliorates rather than harms.

[Eldariel]

In combat, my hope is precisely that the opponents will hear me singing/humming my Enthrall verbal component and attack me as a tanking strategy. So this spell’s in combat use is for locking people down from attacking others. The spell reads "to perceive any other creature other than you" - perceive as in to become aware of through the senses (as defined in the dictionary), in other words, the do not see, hear, feel, smell or taste (ha ha) others (?better than Improved Invisibility). In my mind this is the keyword - “perceive” others. The spell uses the mechanic of Wisdom Perception check one time to see if any of the targets will sense anyone else but me and my magical song, melody or filibuster. Kind of like you are making all of your allies invisible, silent, odorless, etc. to the affected targets because they are enthralled by you (i.e. only perceiving you). Thus, out of combat or if you can tank in combat, I think this spell is unbelievable powerful because of the following: only second level, single save, 120 foot diameter battlefield control without concentration, you choose who is affected, opponents can’t shake or attack the enthralled out of their stupor, next round all enthralled targets turn their attention back to you if they happened to noticed anyone else, and it has out of combat utility!

Couldn't you just cast an actually useful spell like, oh, Fog Cloud or Web or Shatter or Hypnotic Pattern or whatever with the exact same effect of making enemies pay attention to you while also disabling a portion of the opposition and making life easier for your allies? Just the fact that you're concentrating on a powerful effect means your enemies' allies will probably want to break the concentration and with the powerful effect doing something visibly effective and damaging, they'd be even more inclined to do so. As opposed to an effect where the enemy can just make their save and ignore you as they notice nothing happening or even fail their save and still potentially ignore you since somebody is waving a sword at them.

[Amechra]

I'm... confused... by all of the people who think that Enthrall involves you staring at someone. Clearly, the intent is that you'd sit down to "busk" somewhere, and affect everyone within range. You're not pointing at the guards going "I SHALL ENTHRALL YOU!" in magicese, you're muttering a few words and gesturing before you start up your patter.

However... yeah, it's definitely a spell where they absolutely screwed up the intent. It should have been like Glibness - you'd cast Enthrall before performing/playing an instrument to make that action draw more attention, letting you actually draw a crowd. As it stands, the spell is only useful when you already have a captive audience. Which kinda defeats the purpose.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Disagree. Rifles would never magically heal someone or name just about any other spell that has utility or ameliorates rather than harms.

I mean, rifle or not, if someone takes a bandage from their pocket and approaches me, I will probably be quite concerned, and bandage is also designed to "heal" people, not harm them. Generally speaking. I'm pretty sure a similar situation happened in real life in several countries at some point - people were washing other people's windshields without consent and demanded money for service. IDK if this is a practice that still happens, but I'm pretty sure people are not happy about it.
With spells, it's... worse - there are quite a few spells specifically designed to affect target's mind and do something for the caster, so I would understand if a person would be unhappy about someone trying to affect them with a spell they haven't asked for. Especially a guardsman.

[Satori01]

The value of the spell lies in the fact that the targets just have to hear the caster, not understand them.

A Bard can use a Performance ability check to distract a cordon of guards. Enthrall is to keep the murder of crows from loudly taking flight and making a ruckus and alerting other nearby denizens.

It is a useful spell for cattle rustling, ala the Cattle Raid of Cooley, from Irish myth.

I find it curious that many persons assume that their game worlds have monolithic cultures that result in all Verbal and Somatic components being the same and universally recognizable.

To use a real world example both Balinese and Sufi dances have mystical passes...prayers, exhortations to magical beings, turning intent to real world effects....the things spells do in D&D.

If you posses Little to no familiarity with the culture, how easily will you recognize that the Belly Dancer you are watching is "casting a spell" by using a traditional Sufi dance meant to gain the benevolent attention from protective mystical elements?

Reasonably, one can surmise, that that bit nuance will go unnoticed by the uninitiated...you see someone dancing and singing.

In an Eberron context, why is the Tiefling from the Demon Wastes, the Orc from the Shadow Marches, and the Elf trained at Arcanix using the exact same gestures and words?

Why would Yuan Ti spellcasting, or monstrous spellcasting be decipherable to others?

Different cultures in D&D, can have different cultural outputs, just like on real Earth.

[micahaphone]

The value of the spell lies in the fact that the targets just have to hear the caster, not understand them.

A Bard can use a Performance ability check to distract a cordon of guards. Enthrall is to keep the murder of crows from loudly taking flight and making a ruckus and alerting other nearby denizens.

It is a useful spell for cattle rustling, ala the Cattle Raid of Cooley, from Irish myth.

I find it curious that many persons assume that their game worlds have monolithic cultures that result in all Verbal and Somatic components being the same and universally recognizable.

To use a real world example both Balinese and Sufi dances have mystical passes...prayers, exhortations to magical beings, turning intent to real world effects....the things spells do in D&D.

If you posses Little to no familiarity with the culture, how easily will you recognize that the Belly Dancer you are watching is "casting a spell" by using a traditional Sufi dance meant to gain the benevolent attention from protective mystical elements?

Reasonably, one can surmise, that that bit nuance will go unnoticed by the uninitiated...you see someone dancing and singing.

In an Eberron context, why is the Tiefling from the Demon Wastes, the Orc from the Shadow Marches, and the Elf trained at Arcanix using the exact same gestures and words?

Why would Yuan Ti spellcasting, or monstrous spellcasting be decipherable to others?

Different cultures in D&D, can have different cultural outputs, just like on real Earth.


I agree with your general point but in scenarios where you'd use the Enthrall spell I still think it'd be weird. If a belly dancer starts swaying up to a guard while chanting and moving their hands in patterns, I'd expect the guard to suddenly be more alert, as a weird foreign thing is happening. A good guard would be paying attention all around them while a bad guard would zero in on the dancer.

More on the "bad guard" scenario, if someone's singing in a different language while waving their hands near a guard, and this grabs their attention, that could happen without magical means. That's basically the help action, aiding your friend's stealth check. By RAW, there's no roll to help (please correct me if I'm wrong), or at least it's definitely a charisma skill. No problem for a bard/warlock.