Friends and Message Cantrip Combo? Should This Work?

[SKW05]

Can't find any mention of this combination. When I ran it past my DM, he decided it was novel and would allow it.

I still wonder if I've not overlooked a rule or something?

Basically, the intent is to cast Friends cantrip on (say) a guard I can see in the distance.

Then I would disguise my mental 'whisper' and cast the Message cantrip to question/persuade the guard.

The guard would then become hostile as Friends spell ends. However, as he could only hear a disguised whisper, he turns hostile to whoever's voice I am mimicking, or does not know who to turn hostile to.

Works like the Friends and Disguise Self combo, but just with two cantrips instead. Turning guard patrols against each other, pretending to be the voice of the trickster god and persuading a shopkeeper to give me a vast discount, and so forth...

You could also do this with Minor Illusion instead of Message - spell description even says 'if you create a sound it can be your voice or someone else's voice'. So you can whisper/say something in someone's ear in a different voice; Minor Illusion would just cut down on the range.

My DM has ruled that I would have to do a performance check to disguise my voice, but otherwise, it would be ok. Somehow, I'm still not sure I should be able to get away with this... :smallconfused:

[AttilatheYeon]

Use Change Self instead.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I think that you will not be able to get away with it if you fail your check, someone with knowledge about spells is watching you or something similar.

As long as you are being careful and plan when to use it you will be ok.


I will just want to add that I personally agree with this ruling.

[Nifft]

Friends was a mistake.

[Asisreo1]

Can't find any mention of this combination. When I ran it past my DM, he decided it was novel and would allow it.

I still wonder if I've not overlooked a rule or something?

Basically, the intent is to cast Friends cantrip on (say) a guard I can see in the distance.

Then I would disguise my mental 'whisper' and cast the Message cantrip to question/persuade the guard.

The guard would then become hostile as Friends spell ends. However, as he could only hear a disguised whisper, he turns hostile to whoever's voice I am mimicking, or does not know who to turn hostile to.

Works like the Friends and Disguise Self combo, but just with two cantrips instead. Turning guard patrols against each other, pretending to be the voice of the trickster god and persuading a shopkeeper to give me a vast discount, and so forth...

You could also do this with Minor Illusion instead of Message - spell description even says 'if you create a sound it can be your voice or someone else's voice'. So you can whisper/say something in someone's ear in a different voice; Minor Illusion would just cut down on the range.

My DM has ruled that I would have to do a performance check to disguise my voice, but otherwise, it would be ok. Somehow, I'm still not sure I should be able to get away with this... :smallconfused:
The spell states that the character realizes you performed magic on it and it's hostile towards you. It doesn't matter if you weren't seen casting the spell or not, they are hostile towards you. That doesn't mean that they will attack you.

I'd say a guard would never immediately attack someone even if they realize they've been charmed. They're constantly under watch and must report themselves. Depending on what they're guarding and how high authority they have, that might change.

[Riggdgames]

In my view, there's a reason you hear about Disguise Self being used in conjunction with Friends rather than these two cantrips. There's no doubt that you can communicate with a guard with Message or Minor Illusion, but Friends gives advantage on Charisma checks against a non-hostile creature of your choice. Why is that important? If you're disguised and you communicate with a guard normally, it's likely that they will be indifferent or possibly even friendly towards a stranger (before becoming hostile after the end of Friends). If you were to decide to disguise yourself as an Elf in a town at war with Elves, then the guard would likely be hostile towards you from the start and Friends would have no impact.

Now let's look at Message and Minor Illusion. Contrast the usage of Disguise Self above with a voice out of thin air, starting with Message. The default for most guards/creatures is likely to be suspicious (read: hostile) towards a Message from an unknown source. At the very least Friends would not work upfront on the initial check while the guard determines the source of the voice. If your DM rules that you can make a Performance check to sound like another guard or a Deception check to convince them you're the voice of a god, then you'd make that check without advantage even if Friends is active. If that initial check is successful, the guard's attitude would shift as appropriate to their understanding of the source of the voice. Assuming you just convinced the guard that a buddy of theirs whispered to them (and they don't immediately have reason to disbelieve it again when talking to the other guards), then you'd get the benefit of Friends combined with Message.

Minor Illusion is similar to Message above, but add in the guard's Investigation check against your spell save DC to determine whether they identify the voice as an illusion before they start to process your Deception/Performance.

TL;DR: Can you eventually get there with Message or Minor Illusion and Friends? I think so under the right circumstances and with a willing DM. There's nothing I can see in RAW that shows it can't be used that way. That said, social interaction is purposefully one of the most open-ended parts of the game. This is going to be heavily DM-dependent as a guard hearing voices but not being able to immediately pinpoint the source is a lot different than a guard interacting with a disguised character.

Please note, all of the above is my understanding of the rules, nothing more. If someone can point me to where I've strayed, I'll gladly take a look.

[SKW05]

Use Change Self instead.

Do you mean Disguise Self?

To explain, I will be playing a warlock in some one-shots. As I've gone pact of the tome I'm lousy with cantrips but very short on spell slots. I want Misty Visions, so the Mask of Many Faces invocation is a long way down my list of picks. I'm currently theory-crafting to see how to get the maximum from my cantrips.

Of course, I already have the Guidance cantrip and a very high CHA score - really, the only reason I'd need Friends on top is for my own malicious amusement. :smallbiggrin:


checks against a non-hostile creature of your choice

I suppose it really boils down to the DMs interpretation of a neutral attitude versus a hostile one. Is a suspicious attitude also a hostile attitude? It would need a DM ruling.


It doesn't matter if you weren't seen casting the spell or not, they are hostile towards you.

That would make the old Disguise Self and Friends combo unworkable, no?

Personally, I don't think that the Friends cantrip is especially well-worded, the more I read it. :smallconfused:

[Reynaert]

I've always thought the friends/disguise combo is such a strange mix of literal rules interpretation with a very broad common sense interpretation.

Literal as in taking the text that the creature becomes hostile literally as a spell effect, instead of a description/hint of how a typical NPC would react if they realised somebody used magic on them to change their mood, and also take 'hostile' as some keyword that has a very specific meaning.

Common sense interpretation in that the 'you' in the spell description means 'whoever the NPC thinks you were' instead of just 'you'.


IMO, you can't have it both ways.

If you want the literal interpretation, the target becomes hostile to you. That's in the spell.

If you want the common sense interpretation, then the target will not automatically become hostile if you disguised yourself as someone they trusted before. They more likely become confused, and depending on circumstances may even question if it was actually that someone.

[Segev]

I don’t see it as “abusing literal words” to assume that, if you disguise yourself as King Bob and use Friends to gain social advantage against Sam the guard that, when it’s over, Sam would feel hostile towards her king for having felt the need to magically manipulate her.

[Mr Adventurer]

I don’t see it as “abusing literal words” to assume that, if you disguise yourself as King Bob and use Friends to gain social advantage against Sam the guard that, when it’s over, Sam would feel hostile towards her king for having felt the need to magically manipulate her.

I think that is unreasonable to conclude as a rule actually - he's the King, he can do what he likes, and using magic on you when you are one of his subjects is one of those things. The absolute language in the spell makes no allowances for circumstance, however, which is why we have these questions coming up.

I'm forced to conclude that, if I am to run with the spell as it's written, the target becomes hostile to the caster. That's part of its magic: you pay a price for its effect.

Alternatively I might go with a table ruling that "you" in the spell really means "who the target thinks you are when you use the spell on them". Both are fine.

[Keravath]

Here is the text of the cantrips.

Friends
Range: Self
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
"For the duration, you have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at one creature of your choice that isn't hostile toward you. When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you. A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM's discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it."


MESSAGE
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V. S, M (a short piece of copper wire)
Duration: 1 round
"You point your finger toward a creature within range and whisper a message. The target (and only the target) hears the message and can reply in a whisper that only you can hear. You can cast this spell through solid objects if you are familiar with the target and know it is beyond the barrier. Magical silence. 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood blocks the spell. The spell doesn't have to follow a straight line and can travel freely around corners or through openings."



1) The Friends cantrip is cast on YOU, not on the target. It gives the caster advantage on charisma checks against one creature. It doesn't say that the creature needs to see you or otherwise specify how you can communicate with the target creature. A GOO warlock might be able to project their thoughts and would have advantage on persuasion checks. Friends does not impose the charmed condition.

2) Message doesn't require that you even be in sight of the target. The target hears a whispered message and because of friends the caster has advantage on charisma checks. This does not mean that the target of the message will actually do anything suggested. The target has no bias towards the whisperer .. if the whisperer says that the guard should leave his post, the check is likely to be impossible or fail automatically. Why would a guard listen to an anonymous voice whispering in their either whether or not the person has advantage on any required charisma checks. What the caster needs to do is have a reasonable possibility that a disembodied voice might actually be able to convince the target to take the desired action.

Consider, if you heard a voice saying "There's a guy breaking in the back, you'd better go check!" ... would you listen to it? Even if there was another effect making you more positively disposed towards it?

Anyway, yes, I think the combination works to give the caster advantage on charisma checks ... however, friends doesn't make the target any more open to listening to ideas that make no sense and probably less than if the caster was standing in front of them trying to make their case in person. So the outcome will be heavily DM and situation dependent.

[Damon_Tor]

Friends does not say it turns them hostile to you if they know who you are, nor does it say they turn hostile to the person they think cast the spell on them. It says they realize you used magic to influence them and that they turn hostile to you. You can hide or disguise yourself all you like, but they know exactly who cast the spell. How? It's part of the spell. The spell itself lets them know who cast it, perhaps a side of effect of being mind-to-mind with someone.

[Mr Adventurer]

You can hide or disguise yourself all you like, but they know exactly who cast the spell. How? It's part of the spell. The spell itself lets them know who cast it, perhaps a side of effect of being mind-to-mind with someone.

Yeah. As I touch on above when I say 'perhaps it's just the cost of the magic', I think it's I interesting to think of reasons that Friends works this way.

If I were going to houserule the cantrip, I'd probably extend the duration to 10 minutes, an hour, or until after your next Charisma check against the object of your attention. 1 minute just isn't enough to fairly use in most situations.

[Reynaert]

I don’t see it as “abusing literal words” to assume that, if you disguise yourself as King Bob and use Friends to gain social advantage against Sam the guard that, when it’s over, Sam would feel hostile towards her king for having felt the need to magically manipulate her.

Why do you conclude that Sam would feel hostile? She might, she might not, it depends.

[Greywander]

The problem I have with a lot of these interpretation is, how does the guard know who "you" are? Do you have a big neon sign floating over your head that says, "This is the guy that used magic to influence you"? What if you weren't disguised when you cast Friends, but now you are? Can the guard magically see through the disguise to know you're the same person?

Something to remember is that people spend a precious cantrip slot on this spell. It's supposed to be a net benefit. And even if they can't pin down exactly who cast the spell on them, they'll still know that there's someone running around using mind-altering magic on people. They'll take precautions, and if you abuse it too much then new laws might even be passed in that city that restrict spellcasters.

[Nifft]

The problem I have with a lot of these interpretation is, how does the guard know who "you" are? Do you have a big neon sign floating over your head that says, "This is the guy that used magic to influence you"? What if you weren't disguised when you cast Friends, but now you are? Can the guard magically see through the disguise to know you're the same person? I mean, you're just begging the question about how the magic helped make the target friendlier towards you in the first place.

Whatever process that was, just imagine it reversed, and the target now has a "magic emotional malus" pointed directly at you, no matter what form you take, just like the target previously had a "magic emotional boost" pointed at you for the first minute.


Something to remember is that people spend a precious cantrip slot on this spell. Quite possibly a bad decision.

Honestly the cantrip is a mistake and should be reworked, possibly as a level 1 spell without the drawback.

[Greywander]

I mean, you're just begging the question about how the magic helped make the target friendlier towards you in the first place.
No, it does so because that's what the spell does. When the spell ends, they realize they've been affected by magic. But the spell has ended. There are no further magical effects, so there's no possible way the spell could be magically informing them of who cast the spell on them. All that's really happened is that the spell was obfuscating the fact that they were being manipulated, and now that obfuscation is gone, so they can see what just happened to them for what it really was. That's all.


Whatever process that was, just imagine it reversed, and the target now has a "magic emotional malus" pointed directly at you, no matter what form you take, just like the target previously had a "magic emotional boost" pointed at you for the first minute.
This can't possibly be the intended interpretation of this spell. You're basically turning your target into a revenant-lite, in what world would someone willingly cast such a spell?

If the spell was intended to grant supernatural knowledge to the target of who cast the spell on them, then it could have said so. It doesn't. It also doesn't say that it doesn't grant supernatural knowledge to the target. So the question is, which of these two should be considered a default assumption, and which would require further clarification? I think Occam's Razor would be useful here: the explanation with the fewest assumptions is probably the right one. The simplest interpretation is that the spell merely makes the target aware they were affected by magic, and because the spell requires directly interacting with the target, they infer from that interaction who the caster was. If it was meant to do more than this, I feel like the spell description would have said so. And again, once the spell ends, there should be no further magical effects (such as granting the target magical Truesight against you).

Also keep in mind that the spell has somatic components, while Message has both verbal and somatic components. If you cast either spell in front of them, they'll know it was you. To get this "exploit" to work, you have to cast both spells while out of sight and (for Message) out of earshot (they'll recognize your voice from the verbal components). This is tricky because you also need to be in range for Message. Disguise Self works a bit better because you can cast Friends in front of them, but then it's a 1st level spell instead of a cantrip. Either of these tricks requires enough setup and special circumstances that you can't use them every time you might want to use Friends. And again, they still know they were affected by mind-altering magic, and will react accordingly even if they don't know who done it. A guard, for example, might inform his superiors that there's been a potential security breach.


Quite possibly a bad decision.

Honestly the cantrip is a mistake and should be reworked, possibly as a level 1 spell without the drawback.
Charm Person?

[Asisreo1]

The problem I have with a lot of these interpretation is, how does the guard know who "you" are? Do you have a big neon sign floating over your head that says, "This is the guy that used magic to influence you"? What if you weren't disguised when you cast Friends, but now you are? Can the guard magically see through the disguise to know you're the same person?

Something to remember is that people spend a precious cantrip slot on this spell. It's supposed to be a net benefit. And even if they can't pin down exactly who cast the spell on them, they'll still know that there's someone running around using mind-altering magic on people. They'll take precautions, and if you abuse it too much then new laws might even be passed in that city that restrict spellcasters.
I take it that they'd instantly be mad at you but they wouldn't be mad at the person you're disguised as. Basically, Erendil the sorcerer casts friends while disguised as the king. He gets advantage on his Charisma check and people think he's the king. But the person he friends'd knows Erendil used magic and he's hostile to Erendil.

Basically, he thinks Erendil enchanted them on behalf of the king.

I don't think cantrips are all that precious. You don't get many slots but you only need 1-2 of them in combat scenarios, 1 for altering reality, and the rest aren't all that necessary. Firebolt and prestidigation/minor illusion/dancing lights will last for the majority of tier 1 and tier 2 gives enough spell slots that you can probably cast spells that bypass fire resistances already. Tertiary cantrips don't mean much and having a combat cantrips "just in case" that you've never used is basically the same as not having the cantrip at all. Multiple spellcasters mean spells like light and dancing light don't need to be taken by multiple people.

So any party with two spellcasters might find a cantrip slot just hanging out, instead of acid splash or shocking grasp that you'll never want to need to use, picking up friends may be okay. Especially if the campaign is intrigue based. Sometimes, you want to piss someone off.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Friends is a cantrip version of charm. Yeah, I guess the guard could develop inexplicable feelings of friendship towards a disembodied voice, if the voice was nice and reasonable and with a touch of magic, but it's probably not going to be as effective as being friendshipped by an actual person. There's also less you can make the guard do. "Hi there cutie, will you let me in?" is a perfectly reasonable request. "Hi I'm a disembodied voice could you please go face the wall and not pay attention to the passing footsteps?" much less so.

On the other hand, I agree with your DM that if he realizes he's been had but can't figure out who cast the spell he is not going to get in a fight with you.

I tried of ways to abuse Friends too, but the best I could think of was to cozy up to a guard for a minute, let the spell end, have the guard beat my ass and start yelling for help about how that guard totally attacked me out of the blue while I was just being friendly. That might actually be more effective than the spell's intended use.

[Greywander]

I take it that they'd instantly be mad at you but they wouldn't be mad at the person you're disguised as. Basically, Erendil the sorcerer casts friends while disguised as the king. He gets advantage on his Charisma check and people think he's the king. But the person he friends'd knows Erendil used magic and he's hostile to Erendil.

Basically, he thinks Erendil enchanted them on behalf of the king.
Why? If he knows it's Erendil, and not the king, why would he think Erendil was working on the king's behalf? Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that Erendil was impersonating the king for his own benefit, and that such an impostor should be thrown in jail?

It would make more sense to me for the person to know that the "king" cast a spell on them, but also that the king either (a) doesn't use magic, or (b) wouldn't need to use magic, and thus the "king" is probably an impostor. They don't know who the impostor really is, but they might send some guards to arrest and unmask you.


I don't think cantrips are all that precious.[...]
So any party with two spellcasters might find a cantrip slot just hanging out, instead of acid splash or shocking grasp that you'll never want to need to use, picking up friends may be okay. Especially if the campaign is intrigue based. Sometimes, you want to piss someone off.
It's easy to think this if you're more combat focused. You really only need one or two combat cantrips. I like playing utility characters, so I find I'm frequently cantrip-starved. There are a lot of different utility cantrips that each do different things. Would you take Friends over, say, Mold Earth? Mage Hand? Mending? Light? Shape Water? Prestidigitation? Minor Illusion?

[Nifft]

IMO, you can't have it both ways.

If you want the literal interpretation, the target becomes hostile to you. That's in the spell.


No, it does so because that's what the spell does. When the spell ends, they realize they've been affected by magic. But the spell has ended. There are no further magical effects, so there's no possible way the spell could be magically informing them of who cast the spell on them. No, it does so because that's what the spell does.

The spell says the target becomes hostile to you. You. YOU. Not someone else who looks like you.

That's what the spell says it does, so that's what happens (if you're playing for literals, which you do appear to be doing).



This can't possibly be the intended interpretation of this spell. You're basically turning your target into a revenant-lite, in what world would someone willingly cast such a spell? It's a bad spell. Why would my willingness to cast this bad spell be assumed?


If the spell was intended to grant supernatural knowledge to the target of who cast the spell on them, then it could have said so. It doesn't.


For the duration, you have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at one creature of your choice that isn't hostile toward you. When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you. A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM's discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it.
Yes, the spell explicitly does say that it grants knowledge to the target, and since it's a spell which is granting knowledge then presumably it's supernatural knowledge.

You're trying to build a case against something which the rules explicitly do say.

The spell says that the creature realizes that you did a thing, therefore by the rules that's what happens. If the DM wants to change that, then go ahead, but per the rules you're absolutely wrong about this.

[MoiMagnus]

...

"You" is a very ambiguous word. And before reading the thread, I didn't even consider someone would read it as an "absolute you", and not a "relative you" as seen by the mind of the affected person, ie who they think "you" is according to who is the individual they witnessed use the spell friend to interact with them.

[EDIT: by the way, assuming you're right, if the designers intended the spell to make the person be mad at the person they think you are instead of "absolute you", I'm 100% convinced the wording would have been word for word the same as currently, because the design team prefers to use ambiguous but direct sentences to weird but technically precise ones like "the creature realizes that the creature they perceive as being at the same position as you were during the majority of the duration of the spell have used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward this same entity, or anybody they recognise as being the same entity". They would just use "you" and expect peoples to understand that if you trick the guard with an illusion it works.]

If the guard see person A, and gets angry at person A because of one of his actions, then this person disappear and then later encounter two persons B and C.
(1) B is actually the same person than A, but with a totally different appearance. So unless the guards has until the end of time a way to recognise A in whatever circumstances
(2) C has exactly the same appearance than A had, but is someone different. While the misunderstanding could be dismissed if C prove that he cannot be A (for example he is not a spellcaster), you'd probably expect the guard to be at first angry against C.

While the friend spell says that the guard gets angry at you, it doesn't say it communicates a mental image of your real personality and appearance (and/or name?), or create a permanent link that allow the guard to identify you until the end of time. [Both of them would make pretty interesting ruling creating situations where you would want to force a prisoner to cast friend on you to use that effect against them. But in both cases it doesn't feel like the intended resolution of the spell.]. You could rule that it immediately disbelieve any illusion you put between him and you, but that would be kind of weird to me.

Though now that I think about it, I think it could be ruled like "If they have a mental image of who you are, for example because they already met you or heard about you. But if they never met the real you, they have no idea against who they are angry and they will probably never make the connection between this abstract person they hate and the a priori innocent person they meet later." That cause some very weird corner cases when the target has wrong knowledge about who you are (for example, they don't know you have a twin brother). But I guess that's workable without too many DM calls most of the time.

[Greywander]

No, it does so because that's what the spell does.

The spell says the target becomes hostile to you. You. YOU. Not someone else who looks like you.

That's what the spell says it does, so that's what happens (if you're playing for literals, which you do appear to be doing).
Alright, let's be literal then. If I'm in disguise, then the creature has no idea that it's me they're mad at. All they know is that some doofus elf named Erendil used magic on them, and they might even know what Erendil looks like. But clearly I am not Erendil, I'm the king. They're mad at me, but they don't know that I am me. They think I'm the king, not Erendil.

Is this really any more logical?

You can't have it both ways. Either they think the king cast a spell on them, or they know that Erendil cast a spell on them, but they don't know that I am Erendil because I'm disguised as the king. The spell doesn't say it reveals your disguise.


Yes, the spell explicitly does say that it grants knowledge to the target, and since it's a spell which is granting knowledge then presumably it's supernatural knowledge.
Once the spell ends, there are no ongoing magical effects. Some spells can effect permanent changes (e.g. the healing from Cure Wounds), but these changes are typically mundane in nature. It takes a truly powerful spell to create a permanent supernatural effect without the spell itself being permanent (Animate Dead is one such spell).

So, let's assume there is some sort of supernatural knowledge granted to the target. This could only happen at the moment the spell ends, so the spell could only grant them knowledge that it was able to at that time. It might tell them your name, show them your real face, even point to your location. But you can adopt an alias, put on a disguise, and move somewhere else. Then that knowledge is obsolete. The spell has ended, so it can't tell them about your new name, look, or location.


You're trying to build a case against something which the rules explicitly do say.

The spell says that the creature realizes that you did a thing, therefore by the rules that's what happens. If the DM wants to change that, then go ahead, but per the rules you're absolutely wrong about this.
Yeah, they realize you used magic on them. The point of contention here is what "you" means. The way I'm interpreting it is not invalid. I'm saying that the spell doesn't tell them, "Some guy named Erendil cast a spell on you," instead it tells them, "That guy you were just talking to cast a spell on you." "That guy" is you, but they don't know who "you" are. You don't think this is still a pretty severe drawback?


It's a bad spell. Why would my willingness to cast this bad spell be assumed?
It's not a bad spell. You're interpreting the spell incorrectly, and in doing so degrading the value of the spell. Interpreted correctly, the spell is a niche spell that can be used in specific circumstances but has a drawback that prevents it from being universally useful.

Edit: If Friends creates a permanent mental link between the target and the caster that allows the target to identify the caster always under any circumstances, then Friends becomes a flawless prevention against things like dopplegangers.

[Asisreo1]

Why? If he knows it's Erendil, and not the king, why would he think Erendil was working on the king's behalf? Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that Erendil was impersonating the king for his own benefit, and that such an impostor should be thrown in jail?

It would make more sense to me for the person to know that the "king" cast a spell on them, but also that the king either (a) doesn't use magic, or (b) wouldn't need to use magic, and thus the "king" is probably an impostor. They don't know who the impostor really is, but they might send some guards to arrest and unmask you.

Well, what I'm trying to say is that they know Erandil casted some spell and whatever spell they cast, they're more disposed to this king in front of him. Maybe the guard can put 2 and 2 together but they may only just magically know a spell was cast by Erandil because that's what the spell does.

I'm also assuming it was cast in a subtle manner and now out in the open. The guard would probably have an easier time realizing what exactly just happened. The bonus is that you get to lie as the king and say the archmage taught it to you and you wanted to try it out. After the minute, they'll probably be like "hey, wait a minute!" But you should already be past them by then. Conversations where someone's really just trying to get past someone doesn't take longer than a 15 seconds or so, tops.

[Reynaert]

No, it does so because that's what the spell does. When the spell ends, they realize they've been affected by magic. But the spell has ended. There are no further magical effects ...

So you agree that the 'Hostile' part of the spell description is just fluff and not something you can rely on? And therefore the "I use the 'friends' spell to make someone 'Hostile' to their colleague/mate/king" shenanigans are invalid.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Can't find any mention of this combination. When I ran it past my DM, he decided it was novel and would allow it.

I still wonder if I've not overlooked a rule or something?

Basically, the intent is to cast Friends cantrip on (say) a guard I can see in the distance.

Then I would disguise my mental 'whisper' and cast the Message cantrip to question/persuade the guard.

The guard would then become hostile as Friends spell ends. However, as he could only hear a disguised whisper, he turns hostile to whoever's voice I am mimicking, or does not know who to turn hostile to.

Works like the Friends and Disguise Self combo, but just with two cantrips instead. Turning guard patrols against each other, pretending to be the voice of the trickster god and persuading a shopkeeper to give me a vast discount, and so forth...

You could also do this with Minor Illusion instead of Message - spell description even says 'if you create a sound it can be your voice or someone else's voice'. So you can whisper/say something in someone's ear in a different voice; Minor Illusion would just cut down on the range.

My DM has ruled that I would have to do a performance check to disguise my voice, but otherwise, it would be ok. Somehow, I'm still not sure I should be able to get away with this... :smallconfused:

Message doesn't conceal or change your voice, so the creature would still know it was you.

I would probably rule that without Subtle Spell or something that can specifically achieve that effect, the Message is always in your true voice and you can't disguise it, because there are other spells for exactly that purpose.


As for friends, they'll be hostile to the entity that cast magic on them. If you disguise yourself as the king and friends them, they'll be hostile to you right here and now. You look like the king, and they may think you're the king right here and now, but they're also hostile to you right here and now.

[Greywander]

So you agree that the 'Hostile' part of the spell description is just fluff and not something you can rely on? And therefore the "I use the 'friends' spell to make someone 'Hostile' to their colleague/mate/king" shenanigans are invalid.
Well, let's think about it. You use the spell to manipulate them. When the spell ends, they realize that they were manipulated. It does say they become hostile, but... does it force them to become hostile, even if they wouldn't want to be? Does it remove their free will? If so, then it is a very potent tool for manipulation indeed.

I feel like this is more of a mechanical effect, rather than a fluff one. The spell doesn't force the creature to become hostile, but if we apply video game logic then it would always cause, say, a disposition drop when used, and if disposition gets low enough then they might attack us. In a non-video game environment, then all that really happens is that the creature realizes they were manipulated, and probably isn't going to be very happy about it, but it doesn't manipulate them further by forcing hostility.

[Nifft]

"You" is a very ambiguous word. And before reading the thread, I didn't even consider someone would read it as an "absolute you", and not a "relative you" as seen by the mind of the affected person, ie who they think "you" is according to who is the individual they witnessed use the spell friend to interact with them.

[EDIT: by the way, assuming you're right, if the designers intended the spell to make the person be mad at the person they think you are instead of "absolute you", I'm 100% convinced the wording would have been word for word the same as currently, because the design team prefers to use ambiguous but direct sentences to weird but technically precise ones like "the creature realizes that the creature they perceive as being at the same position as you were during the majority of the duration of the spell have used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward this same entity, or anybody they recognise as being the same entity". They would just use "you" and expect peoples to understand that if you trick the guard with an illusion it works.]

If the guard see person A, and gets angry at person A because of one of his actions, then this person disappear and then later encounter two persons B and C.
(1) B is actually the same person than A, but with a totally different appearance. So unless the guards has until the end of time a way to recognise A in whatever circumstances
(2) C has exactly the same appearance than A had, but is someone different. While the misunderstanding could be dismissed if C prove that he cannot be A (for example he is not a spellcaster), you'd probably expect the guard to be at first angry against C.

While the friend spell says that the guard gets angry at you, it doesn't say it communicates a mental image of your real personality and appearance (and/or name?), or create a permanent link that allow the guard to identify you until the end of time. [Both of them would make pretty interesting ruling creating situations where you would want to force a prisoner to cast friend on you to use that effect against them. But in both cases it doesn't feel like the intended resolution of the spell.]. You could rule that it immediately disbelieve any illusion you put between him and you, but that would be kind of weird to me.

Though now that I think about it, I think it could be ruled like "If they have a mental image of who you are, for example because they already met you or heard about you. But if they never met the real you, they have no idea against who they are angry and they will probably never make the connection between this abstract person they hate and the a priori innocent person they meet later." That cause some very weird corner cases when the target has wrong knowledge about who you are (for example, they don't know you have a twin brother). But I guess that's workable without too many DM calls most of the time.

You're trying to turn a mechanical limit -- a player limit -- into a sensible narrative which an NPC could understand in-universe.

But the spell mechanics don't particularly respect the narrative, and the spell doesn't make the victim hostile to the person they think is you, it makes the victim hostile to you.

If you change your whole body, the spell (somehow) transfers that hostility from your previous body to your new one, because the spell says the victim is hostile to you. Does the spell justify that transfer? Nope, the spell just mandates it.

The 5e Friends spell is an unfunded narrative mandate.

It's a bad spell with a poorly thought out catch, but it's pretty clear what it does mechanically, even if that mechanical clarity doesn't come with a whole lot of narrative justification.



Alright, let's be literal then. If I'm in disguise, then the creature has no idea that it's me they're mad at. All they know is that some doofus elf named Erendil used magic on them, and they might even know what Erendil looks like. But clearly I am not Erendil, I'm the king. They're mad at me, but they don't know that I am me. They think I'm the king, not Erendil.

Is this really any more logical?

You can't have it both ways. Either they think the king cast a spell on them, or they know that Erendil cast a spell on them, but they don't know that I am Erendil because I'm disguised as the king. The spell doesn't say it reveals your disguise.

Oh, I guess what you want is:

- You disguise yourself as someone else.

- You cast Friends, which makes the target friendly to you (not someone else).

- You gain nothing from the victim, since the victim wasn't friendly to your disguise, but rather to you.

- 1 minute later, the victim becomes hostile to you (not your disguise).

That would be consistent, but not really like what you want.


What you seem to want is one interpretation when it's beneficial to you, and a different definition when it's not beneficial. Either the spell is flexible about what "you" means (disguise or reality), or it's not.

* If it's not flexible, then you can't be change appearance and also get the benefit.
* If it's flexible, then you can't change appearance to shirk the penalty.

You can't have it both ways.

[Asisreo1]

Well, let's think about it. You use the spell to manipulate them. When the spell ends, they realize that they were manipulated. It does say they become hostile, but... does it force them to become hostile, even if they wouldn't want to be? Does it remove their free will? If so, then it is a very potent tool for manipulation indeed.

I feel like this is more of a mechanical effect, rather than a fluff one. The spell doesn't force the creature to become hostile, but if we apply video game logic then it would always cause, say, a disposition drop when used, and if disposition gets low enough then they might attack us. In a non-video game environment, then all that really happens is that the creature realizes they were manipulated, and probably isn't going to be very happy about it, but it doesn't manipulate them further by forcing hostility.
It's an important distinction to realize that "Hostile" doesn't mean aggresive or even angry. There is a clear definition of hostile in the DMG.



A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn't necessarily attack them on sight. For example, a condescending noble might wish to see a group of upstart adventurers fail so as to keep them from becoming rivals for the king's attention, thwarting them with slander and scheming rather than direct threats and violence. The adventurers need to succeed on one or more challenging Charisma checks to convince a hostile creature to do anything on their behalf. That said, a hostile creature might be so ill-disposed toward the party that no Charisma check can improve its attitude, in which case any attempt to sway it through diplomacy fails automatically.

So a guard that is hostile to Erandil doesn't need to get violent with him or even be mad, he will oppose him directly, though. Especially when he sees him again.

I think this is one of it's greatest strengths. A guard following the law isn't going to attack you and he may call you out but he may not. If you've already left, he can report you but how does he prove you actually cast a spell? If you were disguised, he'll be out to get you but he won't know you're already standing in front of you.

And if he acts outside the law, you've got him right where you want him. Claim a self-defense, the only person that committed a crime with tangible evidence would be the guard.

This says nothing of a corrupt system where the guards can do whatever because they don't like a person, but you'd probably be on the run fairly quickly anyways.

[Reynaert]

Well, let's think about it. You use the spell to manipulate them. When the spell ends, they realize that they were manipulated. It does say they become hostile, but... does it force them to become hostile, even if they wouldn't want to be? Does it remove their free will? If so, then it is a very potent tool for manipulation indeed.

I feel like this is more of a mechanical effect, rather than a fluff one. The spell doesn't force the creature to become hostile, but if we apply video game logic then it would always cause, say, a disposition drop when used, and if disposition gets low enough then they might attack us. In a non-video game environment, then all that really happens is that the creature realizes they were manipulated, and probably isn't going to be very happy about it, but it doesn't manipulate them further by forcing hostility.

If it has a mechanical effect, then how do you explain the mechanical effect is not towards "you", but towards "whoever they perceive you to be" ?

Consider this: if you disguise yourself as the king, then cast friends on yourself, walk past the guard, and 10 seconds later the real king comes along and talks to the guard (before the spell ends), would the real king suddenly have advantage on charisma checks? I would say no. So why would the other mechanical effect be different?

Actually, I would personally say the seccond effect is not mechanical but fluff, but my point is that either way, the shenanigans shouldn't work. Otherwise it would be a potent tool for manipulation indeed, even if it's not 'forced hostile' just 'mechanical disposition change'.

[MoiMagnus]

You're trying to turn a mechanical limit -- a player limit -- into a sensible narrative which an NPC could understand in-universe.

I mean, the remaining of the spell talk about sensible narratives like "Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM's discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it.". I don't really see why the previous sentences should be interpreted as a mechanical limit and not a fluff note about the fact that the target is not aware of the spell before its end, is aware he was tricked, and that it is perceivable as a mental aggression, with its reaction being mostly dependent on the individual and the circumstances.

[A significant number of spells contain fluff remarks, like the sound made by a fireball, in the middle of mechanical rules. Spells like burning hands even have fluff remarks that contradict the technical text around, since burning hands is mechanically described as a 3D cone (it uses the cone keyword) while described by the fluff text as a 2D cone.]

The general rules are very vague on whether a creature can perceive interference on their mind, so it's not absurd for a spell that meddle with one's mind in a priori non-aggressive ways is still perceived as an aggression by the target.

[Nifft]

I mean, the remaining of the spell talk about sensible narratives like "Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM's discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it.". What you're noticing is that the nature of the creature's hostility is certainly not mandatory, but that's fine because that's not what I said.

I just said the creature's hostility to you is what the spell says it does.

So, it does that.


I don't really see why the previous sentences should be interpreted as a mechanical limit and not a fluff note about the fact that the target is not aware of the spell before its end, is aware he was tricked, and that it is perceivable as a mental aggression, with its reaction being mostly dependent on the individual and the circumstances. Because the part where the creature becomes hostile is a mechanical limit -- read a few lines up in your PHB, and you'll see that being hostile prevents the function of this spell on that target.

The creature being hostile to you prevents you from using this specific at-will cantrip upon the same target twice in a row.

That's a mechanical limit on the thing we're discussing.

=== ====== ===

Anyway, I think this is the most sane way to rule for this spell (which is a bad spell and ought to be re-written instead, but here we are):

- You disguise yourself as someone else.

- You cast Friends, which makes the target friendly to you (not someone else).

- While disguised you gain nothing when interacting with the victim, since the victim wasn't friendly to your disguise, but rather to you.

- 1 minute later, the victim becomes hostile to you (not your disguise).


That still allows you to use a disguise to escape the consequences, but only after the fact, and not in an abusive way -- you can't re-target the cantrip's consequence at someone else -- you can only escape recognition as you would be able to do if you got caught doing any other anti-social activity.

[Xoronis]

- You cast Friends, which makes the target friendly to you (not someone else).

- While disguised you gain nothing when interacting with the victim, since the victim wasn't friendly to your disguise, but rather to you.

These two bullet points don't make sense, since the victim is not made friendly towards you, you get advantage on Charisma checks. This is likely due to the fact that the target of the spell is self, rather than the victim. Who you are in the context of who the victim thinks you are doesn't matter for that specific part of the effect.

[Nifft]

These two bullet points don't make sense, since the victim is not made friendly towards you, you get advantage on Charisma checks. This is likely due to the fact that the target of the spell is self, rather than the victim. Who you are in the context of who the victim thinks you are doesn't matter for that specific part of the effect.

In that case, who you appear to be shouldn't matter for the other specific part of the effect, but people seem to find that second bit problematic.

[Segev]

Not arguing for or against any particular interpretation here, but I will point out that the interpretation that it magically makes your target know it was you and be hostile to you, is also quite exploitable via disguise self.

The Warlock abusing disguise self + friends merely never shows up as himself. He's always somebody else. Friends absolutely makes no statement that they can magically recognize you no matter how you disguise yourself, so they'll never be hostile to the person they think you are.

[Reynaert]

Not arguing for or against any particular interpretation here, but I will point out that the interpretation that it magically makes your target know it was you and be hostile to you, is also quite exploitable via disguise self.

The Warlock abusing disguise self + friends merely never shows up as himself. He's always somebody else. Friends absolutely makes no statement that they can magically recognize you no matter how you disguise yourself, so they'll never be hostile to the person they think you are.

The abuse is not "avoiding the consequence yourself", the abuse is "targeting the consequence at somebody else".

It's basically people going (for example) "If I disguise myself as the captain of the guards, then cast 'friends' on one of the guards, and then wait a minute, the spell makes the guard attack the captain."

[Greywander]

Is it possible there's been some sort of miscommunication or misunderstanding here? It feels like we're going around in circles, and, to be honest, I can't see how anyone would think your interpretations make any sense. Sure, they might follow from a literal reading of the rules, but I think a certain degree of common sense needs to be applied. Not everything has to be explicitly spelled out in the rules, because the rules assume we're not stupid and can fill in the gaps ourselves. (To be clear, I'm not calling anyone stupid, I'm just saying the rules don't spell everything out.)

Here's how I interpret Friends:

"Some guy" walks up to a guard and chats him up.
About a minute later, the guard realizes that "some guy" used magic on him.
Guard gets hostile toward "some guy", but doesn't know who he is (unless "some guy" told him).
Guard might take action, such as chasing down "some guy", or alerting his superior.
"Some other guy" walks up to the guard and chats him up.
About a minute later, the guard realizes that "some other guy" used magic on him.
Guard's not stupid, reasons that it's probably the same guy, and probably a shapeshifter or illusionist.
Guard now immediately gets hostile toward anyone remotely suspicious, making further use of Friends nigh impossible.
Guard will definitely alert a superior, and security will increase now that they know there's some kind of enchanter on the loose.

I think someone else brought up the "relative you" versus the "absolute you". Does the guard get hostile toward "Erendil, specifically"? Or does he get hostile toward "that guy I was just talking to"? Again, it's clear to me that it must be that second option; if the spell was meant to grant some special knowledge of the caster to the target, it should say so. It doesn't. Is there any reason we shouldn't assume it's using the relative you (e.g. "that guy I was just talking to")? It seems to me that using the absolute you causes way more problems that require explaining, while the relative you causes no problems at all. Even if we assume that it is meant to be the absolute you, that just raises many unanswered questions about how the spell works, many of which have already been asked in this thread.

I think the real problem is that people are assuming that if the Disguise Self trick works, then it must work flawlessly every time. It doesn't, and won't. The thing about any kind of deception is that it's often only a matter of time before the truth comes to light. And the problem with Friends is that it draws attention to you, giving people a reason to investigate your deception. So really, it should be assumed that whoever you used Friends + Disguise Self on will rather quickly find out the you were an impostor. All it takes is a convincing alibi, which shouldn't be hard since the real person was somewhere else at the time, and probably has witnesses. Furthermore, it's not much of a stretch to think that someone who can manipulate the mind might also be able to take on a disguise.

So I think this is the crux of the issue. The naysayers are naysaying because, from their perspective, it can't work because if it does it would be too strong. They're dismissing all the things that could go wrong. Not only can you fail to create a conflict between the target of Friends and the person you were disguised as, but you might increase security at the place you were trying to break into, or start and actual witch hunt against you. And once word spreads, people will begin taking precautions that prevent you from using such trickery again. And if you get caught, you're probably looking at a swift execution.

Sometimes we need to step back and stop thinking of this as a game for a moment, and think of it as an actual world with actual people capable of actual rational thought. Often, an exploit exists in a game (especially video games) because no one in-universe seems able to recognize it. Enemies will happily run to the same spot and get stuck on terrain while you pelt them with arrows from an unassailable perch, as their meager AI is incapable of understanding the situation they're in. Performing a specific attack at a specific angle will allow you to pass through walls, but NPCs remain oblivious to this and never use this technique themselves (except on accident). These aren't real people, they are soulless automatons, slaves to the system of the game who's only purpose is to entertain us. In a real world with real people capable of rational thought, they would be aware of these things and react to them accordingly. An exploit would either become unviable because everyone is prepared against it, or it would become an ascended bug, a new and accepted tactic used by everyone.

Bringing this back to the original topic, again, to use Friends + Message, you have to remember the components involved and that those components can be used to recognize spellcasting. The guard might not know 100% for sure that the person they heard incanting a spell was the one who manipulated them, but again, they're not stupid. They didn't hear anyone else incanting a spell, or see anyone doing weird gestures. When you know you've been affected by a spell, and only one person in the room has cast a spell in the last minute, that's not exactly rocket surgery. The advantage of Message is that you can break line of sight, but you're going to have a difficult time hiding the verbal components while still being within range to use the spell. There's a pretty good chance that the target will at least recognize you by voice, if not by appearance. Which, I suppose, is still an improvement.

[Dime]

Alright, let's be literal then. If I'm in disguise, then the creature has no idea that it's me they're mad at. All they know is that some doofus elf named Erendil used magic on them, and they might even know what Erendil looks like. But clearly I am not Erendil, I'm the king. They're mad at me, but they don't know that I am me. They think I'm the king, not Erendil.

Is this really any more logical?
No, but it does offer up some amusing possibilities. Anyone who routinely uses a fake persona can use friends without consequences. Targets will become hostile to the "real you" but no one has seen the "real you" since you started pretending to be someone else a decade ago. :)

[Reynaert]

Is it possible there's been some sort of miscommunication or misunderstanding here? It feels like we're going around in circles, and, to be honest, I can't see how anyone would think your interpretations make any sense.

Given that there are several discussions going on in this thread, it would help tremendously in avoiding miscommunication if you would indicate who exactly you are replying to.

[Nifft]

The abuse is not "avoiding the consequence yourself", the abuse is "targeting the consequence at somebody else". Yeah there's nobody claiming that you should be unable to avoid consequences by changing your appearance afterwards.

The argument regarding pre-Friends changes go like:

- Either the benefit and the consequence both apply to real you, so your pre-Friends disguise avoids the consequence but also gains no benefit; or
- Both the benefit and the consequence ignore your disguises, so you do gain the benefit but you also suffer the consequence no matter how you look.

Take your pick. Both are consistent, and both preserve the mechanical balance of the cantrip's restriction.


No, but it does offer up some amusing possibilities. Anyone who routinely uses a fake persona can use friends without consequences. Targets will become hostile to the "real you" but no one has seen the "real you" since you started pretending to be someone else a decade ago. :)

Yeah, but if you can avoid the consequence, it's within the DM's rights to deny you the benefit.

"Real you" had advantage on some checks (but you were in disguise), and then after "real you" had some peeps turn hostile (but you were still in disguise).


tl;dr - Friends was a mistake.

[Reynaert]

Yeah there's nobody claiming that you should be unable to avoid consequences by changing your appearance afterwards.

Well yeah, some people were very rudely sidetracking my sidetracking of this discussion.

But seriously, all I really wanted to say was that whatever way you read it ('hostile' is a mechanical effect, or it is fluff) you can't make the target auto-hostile towards someone else (and I've seen plenty of people wanting to use it that way).

The question if you can avoid consequences yourself does seem to hinge on if you read the 'hostile' clause as mechanical or fluff, though, and I honestly can see both interpretations as valid (though I prefer the 'fluff' one.)

[Asisreo1]

Well yeah, some people were very rudely sidetracking my sidetracking of this discussion.

But seriously, all I really wanted to say was that whatever way you read it ('hostile' is a mechanical effect, or it is fluff) you can't make the target auto-hostile towards someone else (and I've seen plenty of people wanting to use it that way).

The question if you can avoid consequences yourself does seem to hinge on if you read the 'hostile' clause as mechanical or fluff, though, and I honestly can see both interpretations as valid (though I prefer the 'fluff' one.)
But hostile is a mechanic with a definition. I even referenced it from the DMG in this thread.

It's like saying "charmed" is a fluff or saying "magical darkness" is fluff. There is indeed a mechanic for "Hostile."

[Segev]

I don’t think the question is over whether “hostile” refers to the mechanical definition: it clearly does. The question lies in whether the target is hostile towards “you, who you are under any disguise or false identity,” or to “you, the guy he just interacted with as best he can identify him.”

[Nifft]

I don’t think the question is over whether “hostile” refers to the mechanical definition: it clearly does. The question lies in whether the target is hostile towards “you, who you are under any disguise or false identity,” or to “you, the guy he just interacted with as best he can identify him.”

Agreed, and the spell doesn't say the victim becomes hostile to the person whom you currently appear to be.

The victim becomes hostile to the caster.

Either that hostility tracks across visible identity (which seems silly but it's magic), or the hostility attaches to the caster's undisguised identity.


tl;dr - Friends is a bad spell and should be re-worked.

[Reynaert]

But hostile is a mechanic with a definition. I even referenced it from the DMG in this thread.

It's like saying "charmed" is a fluff or saying "magical darkness" is fluff. There is indeed a mechanic for "Hostile."

I'm not saying the term 'hostile' is fluff in itself. I'm saying that the description 'the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you' can be read as fluff. Or, more precisely, that becoming hostile is not a magical effect, but a natural one and therefore subject to common sense and all kinds of exceptions.

[Nifft]

I'm not saying the term 'hostile' is fluff in itself. I'm saying that the description 'the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you' can be read as fluff. Or, more precisely, that becoming hostile is not a magical effect, but a natural one and therefore subject to common sense and all kinds of exceptions.

But it's the description of a magical spell telling you that.

The thing you're talking about being non-magical is only happening because it's written in the text of a spell.

The thing which you want to be non-magical is the effect of a spell, which is magical.


You can't throw away the parts of a spell you don't like. Everything which the spell tells you will happen when you cast it, will happen when you cast it, and it'll happen because of magic. What you're trying to claim is exactly like trying to avoid the lethargy which you'd normally suffer after Haste expires, with the claim that the spell ended therefore it can't do what it says it does.

The spell does what it says it does. If the spell magically makes the creature realize "you" did something, then that's what happens. It happens by magic, and it's magic because it's a spell doing it, and what the spell is doing is exactly what it says it does.

[Mr Adventurer]

By the way, I also think Message is problematic. People focus on how only you and the target can hear the communication, but it's got verbal components so you cast the spell obviously first. As written it only really works if there's a lot of noise that would otherwise preclude conversation, or barriers in the 120 feet between you, or you're on the other side of a battlefield or something. It's not covert for the caster.

[Reynaert]

But it's the description of a magical spell telling you that.

The thing you're talking about being non-magical is only happening because it's written in the text of a spell.

The thing which you want to be non-magical is the effect of a spell, which is magical.


You can't throw away the parts of a spell you don't like. Everything which the spell tells you will happen when you cast it, will happen when you cast it, and it'll happen because of magic.


A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM’s discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it.

Yeah, sounds like a magical effect all right, and not like a description of some possible natural consequences of a creature realizing magic was used on them...

[Segev]

Agreed, and the spell doesn't say the victim becomes hostile to the person whom you currently appear to be.

The victim becomes hostile to the caster.

Either that hostility tracks across visible identity (which seems silly but it's magic), or the hostility attaches to the caster's undisguised identity.


tl;dr - Friends is a bad spell and should be re-worked.


Yeah, sounds like a magical effect all right, and not like a description of some possible natural consequences of a creature realizing magic was used on them...

It seems to me that it's only a bad spell if you insist on trying to read it like it was written with a 3e rules-are-rules mindset.

It reads very clearly to me if you take it at face value, rather than trying to interpret specific magical impact to every word of it. "He realizes you used magic to manipulate him, and is mad. This likely renders him hostile," is the reading I impute to it. Yes, I'm adding words that aren't there, but the spell is not legalistically written. It's explaining why it doesn't work over and over on the same person in short time periods: he's figured out you're manipulating him and now is distrustful, as represented by being hostile.

Imputing a magical ability to discern the caster's identity, the caster's name, or some other aspect of the caster that is not obvious by the presentation is also adding words to the spell, and increasing its effects geometrically by giving divinitory powers to another who isn't even the target of the spell!

I repeat this for clarity: the person you're "using friends on" isn't the target; you are. The person you choose is just the person you're magically more competent at dealing with. This is why there's no saving throw.

The spell is fine, unless you start trying to invent extra powers for it.

Taken at face value, it gives you advantage against one person who isn't actively hostile to you for a minute. It doesn't work on those hostile to you because their guard is up and they're not going to be swayed by the false aura of friendship. After that, the person realizes the guy who was just Charisma-ing at him was manipulating him with magic, and gets mad about it. Being mad makes him hostile to you. "You" are whoever he thought you were, because he doesn't, again, have any means other than his interaction with you to recognize you. If you show up again and he recognizes you, he's hostile to you, so friends fails. If he doesn't recognize you, he has no reason to be more hostile to you than he would to anybody else who looks as you currently do.

You can absolutely try to claim that "he becomes hostile to you" imparts magical hostility that triggers irrationally no matter how you look, even if he doesn't recognize you. However, you're imputing far MORE to the spell than I am when I suggest that all it's saying is that he's hostile to "the guy he just was manipulated by, who happens to be you, but whom he has no special means of recognizing if you change your apparent identity sufficiently."

[Mr Adventurer]

To be fair, even accepting that, the spell would still be borderline useless because of its duration and unreliability (it only gives you advantage on a check you could make anyway). Spellcasting isn't subtle unless you're a particularly invested Sorcerer; so this spell should have a duration different to "1 minute", which simply isn't enough time to use it. It's barely enough time to get past introductions if you're talking to a stranger.

[Segev]

To be fair, even accepting that, the spell would still be borderline useless because of its duration and unreliability (it only gives you advantage on a check you could make anyway). Spellcasting isn't subtle unless you're a particularly invested Sorcerer; so this spell should have a duration different to "1 minute", which simply isn't enough time to use it. It's barely enough time to get past introductions if you're talking to a stranger.

Arguably, sure. It also has problems in that it specifies "Charisma checks," which include things that definitely aren't "friendly." And worse, a quick Intimidation check seems more likely to work in 1 minute than a quick persuasion.

Still, it's there for the pretty girl walking up to the pimply ticket-booth guy at the theater and asking him for a discount or free tickets. That interaction takes less than a minute, and by the time the pimply youth realizes that the pretty girl only smiled at him for the discount and isn't going to give him the time of day when he hasn't got free tickets to offer her, she's long gone into the theater and he's stuck in the booth doing his job.

Substitute any number of similar stereotypes. It's meant for quick "because you like me/think I'm cute, you'll do me this favor, right?" situations. The winsome man getting a good bargain at a stall in the bazaar. The cute kid (who's actually a halfling playing it off) getting away with having been caught shoplifting because he "really meant it" when he said "sorry." The impressive noble whose haughty mannerisms get him past the bouncer at the noble party without the bouncer looking too closely at the fake jewelry and the quality of the "fine" clothing's fabric. The slick dealer who's bribe seems that much more attractive for just long enough to pay off the guard to look the other way, who feels like he was underpaid or otherwise cheated after he recognizes that magic made the bribe seem so enticing.

[Mr Adventurer]

Arguably, sure. It also has problems in that it specifies "Charisma checks," which include things that definitely aren't "friendly." And worse, a quick Intimidation check seems more likely to work in 1 minute than a quick persuasion.

Still, it's there for the pretty girl walking up to the pimply ticket-booth guy at the theater and asking him for a discount or free tickets. That interaction takes less than a minute, and by the time the pimply youth realizes that the pretty girl only smiled at him for the discount and isn't going to give him the time of day when he hasn't got free tickets to offer her, she's long gone into the theater and he's stuck in the booth doing his job.

Substitute any number of similar stereotypes. It's meant for quick "because you like me/think I'm cute, you'll do me this favor, right?" situations. The winsome man getting a good bargain at a stall in the bazaar. The cute kid (who's actually a halfling playing it off) getting away with having been caught shoplifting because he "really meant it" when he said "sorry." The impressive noble whose haughty mannerisms get him past the bouncer at the noble party without the bouncer looking too closely at the fake jewelry and the quality of the "fine" clothing's fabric. The slick dealer who's bribe seems that much more attractive for just long enough to pay off the guard to look the other way, who feels like he was underpaid or otherwise cheated after he recognizes that magic made the bribe seem so enticing.

Yeah, this is my thing though: I get the purpose it's for, I just don't think the parameters it has let it work for those purposes.

1 minute is 60 seconds. Less the time it took you to cast the spell from a safe place and get to your target, too. The very end of a transaction might fit into that timeframe, but the whole conversation is almost always going to be at least that amount. You simply can't rely on being able to cast a spell for these kinds of impromptu moments, and that's what really undercuts Friends, for me.

It's not that these things are impossible. It's that they're so incredibly niche, the spell is borderline worthless - and the advantage it does actually give doesn't reward the hoops you have to go through to contrive those situations, either.

I'm saying this because I have two characters with the spell, one of which I've had from level 3 to 7, the other of which I've had from level 1 to 4, and neither has been able to find a time to be able to cast it.

Edit: building on what I said before about how I'd house-rule it, I think I'd do something like give it a duration of "Concentration, up to 1 hour", have the advantage work any number of times against one creature for one purpose, and the consequences come at the end of the spell's duration/concentration.

[Nifft]

I repeat this for clarity: the person you're "using friends on" isn't the target; you are. The person you choose is just the person you're magically more competent at dealing with. This is why there's no saving throw. Indeed, that's why some of us call that person the victim of the spell, rather than the target.

The target of the spell is the caster.


The spell is fine, unless you start trying to invent extra powers for it.

Taken at face value, it gives you advantage against one person who isn't actively hostile to you for a minute. It doesn't work on those hostile to you because their guard is up and they're not going to be swayed by the false aura of friendship. After that, the person realizes the guy who was just Charisma-ing at him was manipulating him with magic, and gets mad about it. Being mad makes him hostile to you. "You" are whoever he thought you were, because he doesn't, again, have any means other than his interaction with you to recognize you. If you show up again and he recognizes you, he's hostile to you, so friends fails. If he doesn't recognize you, he has no reason to be more hostile to you than he would to anybody else who looks as you currently do.

You can absolutely try to claim that "he becomes hostile to you" imparts magical hostility that triggers irrationally no matter how you look, even if he doesn't recognize you. However, you're imputing far MORE to the spell than I am when I suggest that all it's saying is that he's hostile to "the guy he just was manipulated by, who happens to be you, but whom he has no special means of recognizing if you change your apparent identity sufficiently."
If you use either of the two interpretations I've laid out, the spell works as you intend.

If you're not disguised when you cast the spell, either of my interpretations is adequate, and both function identically.

It's only if you try to use a disguise in order to gain additional functionality that you'd need to care about which of the two interpretations your game is using. But that extra functionality is a bit of an abuse, and the DM using either of my interpretations removes that abuse.


Yeah, this is my thing though: I get the purpose it's for, I just don't think the parameters it has let it work for those purposes.
(...)
Edit: building on what I said before about how I'd house-rule it, I think I'd do something like give it a duration of "Concentration, up to 1 hour", have the advantage work any number of times against one creature for one purpose, and the consequences come at the end of the spell's duration/concentration.

I think the low duration is there to ensure the cantrip has an action cost.

Making the spell not a cantrip would work well with your proposed duration.

Something like...

Friends
1st level Enchantment
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour

For the duration, you have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at one creature of your choice that isn't hostile toward you.

At Higher Levels. You have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at a number of creatures equal to the spell slot level.

[Segev]

I suspect there's a lot of "you can cast without drawing attention" expectation in much of 5e's spell design.

To use another example, you're in line to get into a ball and need to get past the guard/bouncer. He's spending about 10 seconds, 30 at most, with each person to check their invite and let them in. You cast your friends spell when you're 1-2 back in the line; the bouncer et al are focused on the people they're dealing with right now, and maybe on the line as a whole, so you having some gesticulation and saying something, presumably to your companion, doesn't draw much attention. Even if you're using the material component by applying it to your face, you're just farding before stepping up, no big deal.

Then you get your 10-30s of interaction with the guard making the decision to let you in, giving you Advantage on whatever Charisma checks you make to win your way through. He's 2-3 people further down the line before he suddenly realizes that the person he let through a couple guys ago used magic on him.

[Mr Adventurer]

I suspect there's a lot of "you can cast without drawing attention" expectation in much of 5e's spell design.

To use another example, you're in line to get into a ball and need to get past the guard/bouncer. He's spending about 10 seconds, 30 at most, with each person to check their invite and let them in. You cast your friends spell when you're 1-2 back in the line; the bouncer et al are focused on the people they're dealing with right now, and maybe on the line as a whole, so you having some gesticulation and saying something, presumably to your companion, doesn't draw much attention. Even if you're using the material component by applying it to your face, you're just farding before stepping up, no big deal.

Then you get your 10-30s of interaction with the guard making the decision to let you in, giving you Advantage on whatever Charisma checks you make to win your way through. He's 2-3 people further down the line before he suddenly realizes that the person he let through a couple guys ago used magic on him.

On the first point: if so, I wish it were clear about it. My default position is that magic is obvious and occult-looking. I prefer it that way, but also don't see that spells - the most powerful tool in the game - should get any freebies that aren't in the rules.

The scenario you describe could be an appropriate scenario to use the spell as-is, but I would also say that it's fairly contrived: it's not a common scenario for adventures to be in. Dense queues into a poorly guarded place are also more of a modern concept - in a D&D setting I'd find it incongruous. But my main complaint would be: in this scenario, every guest isn't making a Charisma check. They have got invitations. That's why the interaction is so short. If you need to make a Charisma check, then presumably you don't have an invitation, and need to speak with the bouncer. That means you can't rely on the short interaction time the other guests get. Any meaningful interaction could easily take more than the remaining time on your spell.

[Segev]

You’re showing the guard your invitation or offering him a bribe disguised as showing him your invitation. Or you’re flirting or persuading or intimidating with a quick interaction.

And the densest queues I’ve seen in fiction tend to be lines of travelers trying to enter walled cities.