Target succeeds saving throw vs charm person

[Snig]

my question is whether or not a Target who succeeds on his saving throw versus charm person knows that the Caster attempted to charm them?

I'm having an argument with my DM who insists that the target knows that I tried to charm them and he usually responds with hostilities.

My argument is that if they pass the saving throw they were never charmed in the first place therefore the last line doesn't come into effect? "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was Charmed by you."

can anybody help me out here? Any official answers from Sage advice would definitely be helpful in my argument.

[OldTrees1]

Generally I would rule that if a character rolls a saving throw, they know they rolled a saving throw.

For Charm Person, yes I would rule the character knows they just resisted some mind controlling effect.

Do they know it was you? Well how obvious were you that you were the caster?

[PhantomSoul]

If you don't have (and use) Subtle Spell, at the very least they know you tried to cast something (and might figure out it was on them). As for knowing what you cast or what effect they avoided, potentially not (see below), but a lot of tables I've played at have narrative flavour for passing a saving throw (e.g. "you feel distracted or light-headed for a moment, but you quickly shake it off and your mind clears") that a character might believe (right or not) was magic.


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 the spell says otherwise.
(PHB, p. 204)

EDIT:
Worth highlighting that they don't bring up saving throws at all and that saving throws could be why a creature only might not know and that their example is specifically the effect of a spell that doesn't trigger a saving throw immediately and then calls out knowing about the probing attempt when a saving throw is triggered (but maybe that's redundancy, clarification, or just highlighting a change in how it has to be considered in-game). (But Illusions may be pointless if that's pushed to the extreme.)

[Zhorn]

As PhantomSoul has linked; unless a spell calls out that the target knows you tried to cast something on them they will be unaware unless there was a 'perceptible effect'.
What counts as a 'perceptible effect' will change depending on who you ask, but my rule of thumb is:
If it is visible/audible or targets STR/DEX/CON then it is perceptible.
If it targets INT/WIS/CHA, then (pass or fail) they only know they were the target of a spell if an effect of the spell explicitly calls attention to it, or the wording says the target will know.

Example:
Friends specifies in the spell text that the target knows you used magic on it after the spell ends.
Detect Thoughts you can get away unnoticed if you only peer into their surface level thoughts, BUT if you probe deeper the spell text specifies they are aware of that action.
Modify Memory goes unnoticed, as it would become useless if the target was automatically aware of the spell affecting them.

[PhantomSoul]

I could see the argument that failing to affect a target means the spell ended, but I suppose the target wasn't affected, so they can't "know [they] [were] Charmed by you".

But as always, up the the DM of course. Even the phrasing in the PHB leaves it open (if no perceptible effect -> might not know), though here a charm attempt seems like a mind-reading attempt. But even then, without subtle they know a spell was cast anyhow, and if there's any awareness of saving throws (varies by table) then it makes sense for the target to figure it out.

[Zhorn]

But even then, without subtle they know a spell was cast anyhow
They would know if they saw/heard (somatic and verbal components) the caster attempting to cast, but if out of immediate earshot and don't have the caster in line of sight then given the text in the book it is reasonable to take that as a way for such spells to go unnoticed by the target.
I agree if a caster it directly in front of you waving they hands and babbling words, it's a fair assumption that they are attempting to cast something, but if a attack can be made from a hidden position and distance then it's fair to say a spell could also be cast from a hidden/distant position, like Scrying on a target.

[PhantomSoul]

They would know if they saw/heard (somatic and verbal components) the caster attempting to cast, but if out of immediate earshot and don't have the caster in line of sight then given the text in the book it is reasonable to take that as a way for such spells to go unnoticed by the target.
I agree if a caster it directly in front of you waving they hands and babbling words, it's a fair assumption that they are attempting to cast something, but if a attack can be made from a hidden position and distance then it's fair to say a spell could also be cast from a hidden/distant position, like Scrying on a target.

Charm Person has a small range of 30 feet and requires the target be seen, so the caster being seen and heard is likely (especially since to use the charm benefits you probably want them to hear you after the casting). Not a guarantee, sure (maybe the target is in a zone of Silence and you're casting from Darkness against a creature who can't see into it), but a pretty safe bet for the relevant spell here!

[Zhorn]

Oh for sure, just reiterating that the part being noticed isn't a function of being target by the spell.
White room scenario it's pretty hard to cover up the casting without access to Subtle Spell, but as the key components of noticing the spell casting are having a visual and or audible bead on caster, then there are ways to conceal it, either through other spell/magic effects, or just good old masking with other sensations. Casting from a alleyway while the target walks through a noisy market for example.

[sophontteks]

Yeah, they know because of verbal and somatic components. These are intended to balance spellcasters, so they can't just willy nilly cast spells on people in non-hostile settings. If you succeed in charming someone, the charm effect basically removes the preceived hostility caused by casting a spell.

It's also why subtle spell is so powerful. You can pick it up as a feat now.

Since people only know that a spell is being cast, the act of casting a spell is often considered a hostile action in itself. This is why the act of casting a spell results in an initiative roll before you can do it.

DMs usually are pretty lax on this part, but strictly from an NPCs position, you casting fireball is no different then casting charm person. If they'd try to attack you before you can cast a fireball, they could do the same for you casting any spell.

[Mastikator]

Identifying A Spell

Sometimes a character 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.

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. The DC equals 15 + the spell's level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage. For example, if the spellcaster casts a spell as a cleric, another cleric has advantage on the check to identify the spell. Some spells aren't associated with any class when they're cast, such as when a monster uses its Innate Spellcasting trait.

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 Charisma. Being able to cast spells doesn't by itself make you adept at deducing exactly what others are doing when they cast their spells.

-Xanathar's Guide to Everything (pg 85)

(my source (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/50499/how-to-identify-a-spell-being-cast), I found it by googling "dnd 5e identify a spell being cast")

Basically you may attempt an intelligence arcana check. DC 16 (or higher if cast at higher level) in this case. If you succeed you know it's been cast, if you know the spell you have advantage. And as others have said you have to actually see the spell being cast, so subtle metamagic, or just looking in another direction will stop it.

Besides that, the spell says "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you.".

So if you see someone cast charm person on you, you have a chance to know it was cast on you. If you succeed you know know you are fighting the enemy and thus gain advantage on your saving throw to resist charm. After the spell ends you automatically know you were charmed.

[Sigreid]

The saving throw literally represents you actively fighting off a spell.

[JonBeowulf]

[Adds this situation to ever-growing list of stuff to discuss in Session 0.]

[Cass]

I would say that if they succeeded the Saving Throw they don't necessarily know that you attempted to Charm them. However if you are casting a spell with V and S component without warning and in a neutral to hostile environment I would ask you to roll initiative even before making the save, meaning the target has advantage or even take hostile action towards you before or after the spell is cast, then allow them to roll an Arcana check as a Reaction to try and recognize what spell you cast.

[SociopathFriend]

I personally insist a Saving Throw means you felt something.
You can, for example, hardly fail to notice when you mess up a Strength or Dexterity Saving Throw. Most Constitution Saving Throws likewise are fairly obvious.

Detect Thoughts actively spells out that it's possible to feel someone digging into your mind and looking for stuff even if you fail the Wisdom Save. Makes no sense at all to us but, nonetheless, magic apparently creates this feeling that can be detected in D&D. As such what specifically you feel is up to the player/DM and how they want to fluff it but I do insist that you should be able to tell when you're making a Saving Throw unless the game explicitly says otherwise.

Charm Person I would also guess specifically includes some sort of feeling specific to you as the spell doesn't make the target friendly to others- just the caster. So when the spell ends either via duration or a passed save (imo spell starts when you spend the slot- regardless of whether it works or not) that includes a sensation of, "That person did this to me".

Because RAW they'll figure it out anyways even if you Subtle Spell it. So it's not any particular thing you do with components or gestures but the magic itself that gives you away.

[MaxWilson]

I personally insist a Saving Throw means you felt something.
You can, for example, hardly fail to notice when you mess up a Strength or Dexterity Saving Throw. Most Constitution Saving Throws likewise are fairly obvious.

Detect Thoughts actively spells out that it's possible to feel someone digging into your mind and looking for stuff even if you fail the Wisdom Save. Makes no sense at all to us but, nonetheless, magic apparently creates this feeling that can be detected in D&D. As such what specifically you feel is up to the player/DM and how they want to fluff it but I do insist that you should be able to tell when you're making a Saving Throw unless the game explicitly says otherwise.

I go even a little bit further and say that magic is perceptible (within line of sight) even when you're not sure what it's doing. A Mind Flayer can cast Dominate Person without any spell components, but that doesn't mean it can necessarily get away with just waltzing up under a Disguise spell and Dominating Emperor Napoleon without anyone being the wiser. The surge of energy announcing that someone just cast a spell the king's presence is going to produce a reaction from bodyguards present, akin to the way the Secret Service would react to a shout of "he's got a gun!"

Conveniently, this also explains why Counterspell only requires you to see the creature casting a spell (i.e. be within line of sight***), instead of requiring you to see the spellcasting components. You could still Counterspell the Mind Flayer just by opposing the energy surge, even if you're not sure where it's coming from.

*** Okay, it doesn't explain why RAW specifically says you have to see them any more than it explains why RAW forbids a blind person from casting Magic Missile on someone they're physically in holding in a headlock. My explanation for that is "RAW is kind of dumb and 'person you can see' should actually be interpreted 'person within line of sight, i.e. not behind total cover from where you are'." Under that assumption, Counterspell works out nicely.

[Cass]

Because RAW they'll figure it out anyways even if you Subtle Spell it. So it's not any particular thing you do with components or gestures but the magic itself that gives you away.
RAW they will figure it out only at the end of the duration. If the target succeeds the Saving Throw there's no duration so no reveal by RAW.

[PhantomSoul]

RAW they will figure it out only at the end of the duration. If the target succeeds the Saving Throw there's no duration so no reveal by RAW.

I read that part as not being the problem; forcing the saving through is part of the spell, so the spell did start. (You also have started concentrating as of the start of casting for concentration spells, making it even more "duration-y".) The best argument I see (if ignoring general rules/rulings that could be applied) is that it says "the creatures know it was Charmed by you", which only applies if it failed.

[MaxWilson]

RAW they will figure it out only at the end of the duration. If the target succeeds the Saving Throw there's no duration so no reveal by RAW.

Technically there's still a duration, but no effect during the duration. This is sometimes game-relevant, e.g. War Mages at level 10 gain a bonus from concentrating on a spell, so a War Mage who casts Dominate Monster (and the target saves) still has an incentive to keep concentrating on the spell, even though there's no effect.

The wonky thing about the RAW for Charm Person is that at the end of that hour, the target "knows it was charmed by you", even though... it wasn't.

[tchntm43]

A large part of this controversy can be avoided by the DM knowing how to withhold information. In general, I think it's bad practice to tell the player that something happens and then expect the player to role-play that his character doesn't know it.

Want the character to know the spell was cast against him? Say "so-and-so casts Charm Person, make a saving throw."
Don't want them to know? Say "make a Wisdom saving throw" and nothing else.

[Unoriginal]

my question is whether or not a Target who succeeds on his saving throw versus charm person knows that the Caster attempted to charm them?

I'm having an argument with my DM who insists that the target knows that I tried to charm them and he usually responds with hostilities.

My argument is that if they pass the saving throw they were never charmed in the first place therefore the last line doesn't come into effect? "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was Charmed by you."

can anybody help me out here? Any official answers from Sage advice would definitely be helpful in my argument.


Your DM has made their ruling on the question. I don't think any argument is going to change that.

That being said, a DM should warn a player about the risks, given that the *character* would have knowledge of how the spell work that the player wouldn't necessarily be aware of.

[MaxWilson]

Don't want them to know? Say "make a Wisdom saving throw" and nothing else.

Or just roll a die yourself without explaining why. Peer at it for a second, then grunt and make a note on a sheet of paper.

[Zhorn]

A big part of this to me is about consistency of rule.
If they are ruling that the attempt of a spell gives a sensory effect regardless of save of fail, and regardless of spells specifying the exact condition when awareness of the spell would be made, then you could argue that ALL spells share that same awareness.

"Don't believe everything you see just now, I feel an attempt at illusions was just made against my mind"
"Everyone by quiet, I'm being targeted by divination right now"
"Listen buddy, I know I trust you with my life, but can we wait a minute before we go anything drastic? I feel like I've been charmed"


Or just roll a die yourself without explaining why. Peer at it for a second, then grunt and make a note on a sheet of paper.
Oh I insist on player rolling their own dice, just don't tell them what it is.
It's not "Make a Wisdom Saving throw" when outside of combat, it is "give me a d20", then grunt and make a note.

[JoeJ]

Or just roll a die yourself without explaining why. Peer at it for a second, then grunt and make a note on a sheet of paper.

Or have all the players pre-roll 5 or so saving throws, keep the list behind your DM screen, and cross them off as they're used.

[PhantomSoul]

"Don't believe everything you see just now, I feel an attempt at illusions was just made against my mind"
"Everyone by quiet, I'm being targeted by divination right now"
"Listen buddy, I know I trust you with my life, but can we wait a minute before we go anything drastic? I feel like I've been charmed"

I'm guessing this is partly intentional exaggeration -- that's more information than it looks like anyone here is suggesting you're supposed to automatically know. (Though naming the spell was used in an example by tchntm43, specifically when they were saying you don't need to do it.)

[D+1]

Charm Person is not a gentle and nebulous spell IMO. It is an attempt to compel someone who may even openly hate you to treat you as their personal friend. It is an ATTACK spell and you don't use it on people who are already your friends (unless you yourself are in fact NOT THEIR friend, in which case by casting it you openly reveal your true relationship to them). Unless there's deafening noise and your targeted PC is blind then there's no reasonable expectation that your character fails to see and hear the caster. Even if it's assumed that the caster doesn't communicate to your PC in an intelligible fashion as part of the casting (i.e., "Look deep into my eyes and see only that I am your best and truest friend...") then -IMO- your PC will still feel the STRONG mental tug trying to FORCE you to behave as a friend toward someone you have no reason to befriend (or even if you already thought they were your friend before, you WILL feel the unwilling compulsion as the spell tries to take hold of you).

I believe that the only way to SECRETLY cast Charm Person and get away cleanly if the target makes their save, is to be unseen and unheard by your target as you do it - or at best to be unidentifiable such as by not being the only visible/audible caster that COULD have caused that wave of compulsion. It can be done, but IMO it is no more subtle than shooting arrows at a target and inexplicably expecting them not to notice by default, simply because you missed.

[Zhorn]

I'm guessing this is partly intentional exaggeration
Partly, yes.

In Snig's post, the details are a little light on exactly how it played out, so it depends on what aspect the DM is saying the NPC is responding to as to whether or not I agree with their ruling.

Like others have said, if a caster is in your immediate vicinity and attempts to caste a spell in a way that you notice the somatic and/or verbal components, then yes that is a valid cause for hostilities, as an unknown spell could very well be perceived as an attempted attack. Context matters, but we're assuming the two individuals are not perceiving the other as a trusted person and their was no indication of a spell being used for the other's benefit.

But outside of perceiving the somatic and/or verbal components of a casting, the general rule you posted from PHB p204 should be in the expectation. The charm didn't take hold, and so the condition of the creature being made aware of the charm as per the spell text did not come to pass. The attempted effect of the spell should go unnoticed. Adding in any additional perceptible effects not called out in the spell text is house ruling.

And if a DM is ruling spell effects are perceptible beyond what is called out in the books for some spells, why not others? Why not ALL? (I would blue text this, but I think it's a serious enough question to not be blue).
Take the reasoning they are using for one spell, and apply it to another spell that uses the same save or success condition elsewhere. As I was highlighting with the prior examples, insisting automatic awareness of being targeted by a spell undermines the effectiveness of some spells.

Now another point people are bringing up is the notion of the mental saving throws being an active component on the target's end, which I disagree with.
If they were an active save, then like with the Unconscious condition, there would be a callout to having disadvantage or automatically failing them the same way it is for Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
If the target can be completely unaware and still make a save normally, then it stands to reason that the save is an entirely subconscious reaction, and could go by unnoticed when called into use.

[PhantomSoul]

Partly, yes.

In Snig's post, the details are a little light on exactly how it played out, so it depends on what aspect the DM is saying the NPC is responding to as to whether or not I agree with their ruling.

Like others have said, if a caster is in your immediate vicinity and attempts to caste a spell in a way that you notice the somatic and/or verbal components, then yes that is a valid cause for hostilities, as an unknown spell could very well be perceived as an attempted attack. Context matters, but we're assuming the two individuals are not perceiving the other as a trusted person and their was no indication of a spell being used for the other's benefit.

But outside of perceiving the somatic and/or verbal components of a casting, the general rule you posted from PHB p204 should be in the expectation. The charm didn't take hold, and so the condition of the creature being made aware of the charm as per the spell text did not come to pass. The attempted effect of the spell should go unnoticed. Adding in any additional perceptible effects not called out in the spell text is house ruling.
save is an entirely subconscious reaction, and could go by unnoticed when called into use.

In that case, agreed, like in an old Sage Advice: (Though here it's still partly ambiguous, but it seems to imply the RAI for Charm Person specifically is that you only find out if they failed and the spell ended -- though they can obviously know you cast a spell and they or their allies might therefore generate obvious suspicions)


Do you always know when you’re under the effect of a spell? You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it (see PH, 204, under “Targets”). Most spells are obvious. For example, fireball burns you, cure wounds heals you, and command forces you to suddenly do something you didn’t intend. Certain spells are more subtle, yet you become aware of the spell at a time specified in the spell’s description. Charm person and detect thoughts are examples of such spells.

Some spells are so subtle that you might not know you were ever under their effects. A prime example of that sort of spell is suggestion. Assuming you failed to notice the spellcaster casting the spell, you might simply remember the caster saying, “The treasure you’re looking for isn’t here. Go look for it in the room at the top of the next tower.” You failed your saving throw, and off you went to the other tower, thinking it was your idea to go there. You and your companions might deduce that you were beguiled if evidence of the spell is found. It’s ultimately up to the DM whether you discover the presence of inconspicuous spells. Discovery usually comes through the use of skills like Arcana, Investigation, Insight, and Perception or through spells like detect magic.
(Sage Advice: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-september-2016)

I think the only ambiguous spot where this is a problem could be illusions (Divination scrying normally seems more clearly unnoticeable), since it could distinguish between figments and real things (e.g. Phantasmal Force) or between images and real things (e.g. illusion vs. summon). Though that may not be a major concern for the most part; it gives you in-game justification to motivate taking the Search action, and lots of things are checks rather than saving throws (nullifying the saving throw = aware issue).


And if a DM is ruling spell effects are perceptible beyond what is called out in the books for some spells, why not others? Why not ALL? (I would blue text this, but I think it's a serious enough question to not be blue).
Take the reasoning they are using for one spell, and apply it to another spell that uses the same save or success condition elsewhere. As I was highlighting with the prior examples, insisting automatic awareness of being targeted by a spell undermines the effectiveness of some spells.

Now another point people are bringing up is the notion of the mental saving throws being an active component on the target's end, which I disagree with.
If they were an active save, then like with the Unconscious condition, there would be a callout to having disadvantage or automatically failing them the same way it is for Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
If the target can be completely unaware and still make a save normally, then it stands to reason that the save is an entirely subconscious reaction, and could go by unnoticed when called into use.

I do think there's a principled aspect at play here, especially narratively: a mental saving throw reflects an attempted assault on your mind (in some broad sense), and stereotypically you don't shrug that off unknowingly (I'd argue maybe a Deep Gnomes does, perhaps if they double-succeed, even if another race wouldn't). It's one of the spots where I think gradient success/failure rules could easily have a small but noticeable effect, e.g. if you succeed by 5 or more, you're aware of the attempt (but still not explicitly the spell). that might be narratively weird since low success might better represent struggle, but mechanically it seems worse to give less benefit to a more successful roll. It would also mean your DC is doing double-duty in a cool way; DC = chance to fail, and DC+5 (or whatever) = DC to be aware.

Alternatively (perhaps even better, if you don't mind increasing the number of rolls), I could see it just being an ability check to determine whether the character realised it, and you would only roll it if it actually matters (like any ability check).

[Zhorn]

Very reasonable, still house ruling though.

As for Snig's question they are looking for official/RAW rules on the matter. To that end I'm trying to restrict my answer to cases only made by the wording used in the text, or where speculation is use it needs to stay consistent with the text across the board.

[Keravath]

Charm Person has a small range of 30 feet and requires the target be seen, so the caster being seen and heard is likely (especially since to use the charm benefits you probably want them to hear you after the casting). Not a guarantee, sure (maybe the target is in a zone of Silence and you're casting from Darkness against a creature who can't see into it), but a pretty safe bet for the relevant spell here!

Casting a spell in a darkened booth with the curtains mostly drawn in a noisy tavern would be very likely to go unnoticed in one of my games so there are circumstances where a spell casting target might easily be unaware of the situation.

As a general question though

p.204 "Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all."

Unless the spell has a perceptible effect, there is a good chance the target may be unaware it was targeted by a spell.

However, is there anything in the rules that says the caster is aware of whether the target succeeded or failed?

If a character casts Charm Person on a target, is there any way to know whether it was successful except by interacting with the target? Similarly, is the only way to know that a Suggestion spell was successful is whether the creature actually does something to indicate that they are following the suggestion?

[ImproperJustice]

As a GM I don’t want my players to spam cast Charm Person / Illusions mind affecting spells on targets without repercussions for failure until they land what they want on the King or some nonsense.

So yeah, you feel magic trying to invade your mind and when you make your Saving Throw you know your fighting something off.

[patchyman]

Casting a spell in a darkened booth with the curtains mostly drawn in a noisy tavern would be very likely to go unnoticed in one of my games so there are circumstances where a spell casting target might easily be unaware of the situation.


In my games, that might work for a spell other than Charm Person. In order to be “charmed by you”, the target needs to see who they are being charmed by.

Put another way, Charm Person does not impart knowledge on the target that they wouldn’t otherwise have.

[Zhorn]

In my games, that might work for a spell other than Charm Person. In order to be “charmed by you”, the target needs to see who they are being charmed by.

Put another way, Charm Person does not impart knowledge on the target that they wouldn’t otherwise have.
Yep, because it is a well known fact the blind condition grants immunity to charm spells and effects of that nature :smallwink:

[sophontteks]

Based on the responses, It's probably easier to just ban all charm spells entirely. I don't see the point of them anymore.

You don't need to houserule additional perceivable effects that don't exist in the description. Charms are already heavily subdued by the visibility of the Verbal and Somatic components of spellcasting, which are enough for anyone to see that you are casting a spell and react by starting initiative before the spell is cast. Making spells more obvious then this is wholly unnecessary, and breaks things like sorcerers, who give up an awful lot just to get around it

[Zhorn]

Based on the responses, It's probably easier to just ban all charm spells entirely.
Unfortunately for the OP and their situation, it is not up to them as a player to dictate the spell ban list.
But I agree with you, it's probably a better outcome to table ban spells rather than pushing extra conditionals and insisting implications not part of the RAW that only serve to dissuade their use. As a player it can be very frustrating to use something assuming they work just as per the spell text and then the DM then insists on a failure condition you were not previously made aware of.

[Reynaert]

But I agree with you, it's probably a better outcome to table ban spells rather than pushing extra conditionals and insisting implications not part of the RAW that only serve to dissuade their use. As a player it can be very frustrating to use something assuming they work just as per the spell text and then the DM then insists on a failure condition you were not previously made aware of.

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons why it's important to be clear on what the rules (as written or intended) are even though the first rule is "the DM decides". More specifically, it's because, as a player, you're liable to go: "You're houseruling such-and-such? Had I known that, I would have never chosen this spell/ability/subclass/etc."

I believe it's an unwritten social rule that any houserules must be announced in session zero. If that doesn't happen, then when a houserule is announced (which can certainly happen, especially if it's a situation the DM didn't think of, or has changed their mind based on new information/insights), players should be able to act as if it had been, and retroactively make different choices based on that houserule.

[Tanarii]

Generally I would rule that if a character rolls a saving throw, they know they rolled a saving throw.


The saving throw literally represents you actively fighting off a spell.


I personally insist a Saving Throw means you felt something.

It's kind of hard for the player not to know they rolled a saving throw anyway. They roll it, unless the DM is house-ruling something like the DM rolling for the player, or rolling in advance. And if the player knows it, so does the PC, unless you've got a table rule that requires metagaming to pretend you don't know stuff you know.

But that doesn't mean they know what spell was cast, if it doesn't have a perceivable effect. Or even that a spell was cast at all, if the PC doesn't perceive the casting of the spell. Just that something happened to cause a save.

Of course, the OP left out critical information as to if the casting of the spell was perceived.


My argument is that if they pass the saving throw they were never charmed in the first place therefore the last line doesn't come into effect? "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was Charmed by you."

can anybody help me out here? Any official answers from Sage advice would definitely be helpful in my argument.
If that's the basis for your DM's judgement, you are correct and they are wrong. The spell never affects the creature if they made the save, so you're correct that the last line doesn't apply.

But they still might know you cast a spell (if they perceived your components) and they do know they made a save.

[Jerrykhor]

my question is whether or not a Target who succeeds on his saving throw versus charm person knows that the Caster attempted to charm them?

I'm having an argument with my DM who insists that the target knows that I tried to charm them and he usually responds with hostilities.

My argument is that if they pass the saving throw they were never charmed in the first place therefore the last line doesn't come into effect? "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was Charmed by you."

can anybody help me out here? Any official answers from Sage advice would definitely be helpful in my argument.

Your DM is right. The spell 'starts' when you begin casting it. It ends when the target passed the save. Which is almost immediately, but yes, there is a start and end.

Even ignoring the rules, your argument is a poor one. That's like saying if you punch me but missed, i was never punched in the first place. But i definitely know that you tried.

[Sigreid]

It's kind of hard for the player not to know they rolled a saving throw anyway. They roll it, unless the DM is house-ruling something like the DM rolling for the player, or rolling in advance. And if the player knows it, so does the PC, unless you've got a table rule that requires metagaming to pretend you don't know stuff you know.

But that doesn't mean they know what spell was cast, if it doesn't have a perceivable effect. Or even that a spell was cast at all, if the PC doesn't perceive the casting of the spell. Just that something happened to cause a save.



Agree. I would probably rule you fought off the magic starting to cloud your mind, so you would know there was some kind of a mind affect your fought off, but not charm person specifically.

[Valmark]

Seems to me that the wording is clear. The target knows that they were Charmed by you, which never happened, so they wouldn't know.

But like others said if the target saw/heard you then it works out the same- remember to never Charm People someone in the face unless you got Subtle metamagic! Or you're an aberrant mind I guess.


Your DM is right. The spell 'starts' when you begin casting it. It ends when the target passed the save. Which is almost immediately, but yes, there is a start and end.

Even ignoring the rules, your argument is a poor one. That's like saying if you punch me but missed, i was never punched in the first place. But i definitely know that you tried.

You would only know that they tried if you see/hear them, so that example actually makes perfect sense for OP's argument.

[JoeJ]

The way I run it is that if you save vs. a spell you know you resisted something magical, but not exactly what it was or where it was coming from. However, if you saw or heard somebody casting a spell just before you made that save, you are certainly able to draw the obvious conclusion.

[Reynaert]

The spell 'starts' when you begin casting it.

True.


It ends when the target passed the save.

False. It has a duration of "one hour (concentration)" so it ends after an hour or when the caster drops concentration.

[Zhorn]

It ends when the target passed the save. Which is almost immediately, but yes, there is a start and end.False. It has a duration of "one hour (concentration)" so it ends after an hour or when the caster drops concentration.
More importantly

Charm Person
...
If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it.
...
When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you.
...
As repeated a few times already, if the target succeeds on the save it will not have been charmed. So even stretching the casting of the spell into the duration as Jerrykhor implies, the targeted creature was still never charmed by you, so there's nothing for them to know on that front.

Seeing and/or hearing the somatic and/or verbal components is the only way by RAW for the target to be made aware of the spell on a successful saving throw.

Ruling the act of attempting mental save as a detectable sensation is entirely a table rule.
The narrative of mental assaults in fiction is very common and isn't unreasonable, but it is not a function of the official rules for the general application of spells with mental saves.
From my searching of the PHB, there is only one spell that treats making a mental save as experiencing a mental assault, and that is the Confusion spell (PHB p224). Outside of that, the general rule for "perceptible effect" as detailed on PHB p204 covers this.
Charm Person's spell text makes no indication of producing sounds or light effect, it does not cause damage, it doesn't move air or objects, it doesn't charge the air with static energy, it doesn't change temperature, and make no mention of the target feeling anything in their head in attempting to resist.
Again, the narrative sounds reasonable, but it is an inserted house rule that is not a RAW function of Charm Person, and based solely on wording of the PHB, OP has it right and the DM is in the wrong.... UNLESS (and this is where more information is needed) the DM was responding to only the perception of the verbal/somatic components, and not the magic of the spell.

As far as meta knowledge of "the player knows, therefore the character knows", the level that reasoning is going to fly will vary greatly table to table, as is the capacity for players (and DM) to adhere to such restrictions. Some tables are strict on it, other are lax. Some folks are very good and keeping inside-vs-outside game knowledge distinctly different, while others cannot even comprehend how other people at the table can be unaware of the things they themselves know.

editor note: this wasn't an @you, Reynaert, just building off your post.

[Tanarii]

Agree. I would probably rule you fought off the magic starting to cloud your mind, so you would know there was some kind of a mind affect your fought off, but not charm person specifically.


The way I run it is that if you save vs. a spell you know you resisted something magical, but not exactly what it was or where it was coming from. However, if you saw or heard somebody casting a spell just before you made that save, you are certainly able to draw the obvious conclusion.IMo that's more information that is required. They don't need to know it's mind affecting, nor that it was a magical effect. All they get to know is they rolled a Wisdom Saving throw. They don't even get to know if they saved or failed.

I am discounting whether or not the spell is perceived as a separate issue. And of course in this particular case they will probably guess they failed, because they're charmed, although that won't necessarily give away exactly how (e.g. a Charm Person spell) unless they saw it being cast.

But if we take a spell like Hex, they won't know if they failed until they take extra damage or have disadvantage on the ability check. And even then they won't know *why*, although a knowledgeable player (or PC making a lore check) can probably guess.


False. It has a duration of "one hour (concentration)" so it ends after an hour or when the caster drops concentration.
Charm person isn't a concentration spell. It has a fixed duration of one hour,

[Sigreid]

IMo that's more information that is required. They don't need to know it's mind affecting, nor that it was a magical effect. All they get to know is they rolled a Wisdom Saving throw. They don't even get to know if they saved or failed.

I am discounting whether or not the spell is perceived as a separate issue. And of course in this particular case they will probably guess they failed, because they're charmed, although that won't necessarily give away exactly how (e.g. a Charm Person spell) unless they saw it being cast.

But if we take a spell like Hex, they won't know if they failed until they take extra damage or have disadvantage on the ability check. And even then they won't know *why*, although a knowledgeable player (or PC making a lore check) can probably guess.


Charm person isn't a concentration spell. It has a fixed duration of one hour,

To me, some spells you have to refocus your brain (will save) and others perhaps you start to feel a little sick or lethargic and shake it off (con save).

[JellyPooga]

To all those advocating the "Roll Initiative" response (or similar hostile reaction) to Charm Psrson, I have to ask if you expect similarly hostile reactions to all spellcasting?

It's pretty well established that magic is, by default, pretty commonplace. Many common races have access to racial spellcasting, if nothing else. As such, a hostile reaction to an unknown spell cast in your general vicinity sounds somewhat like a case of extreme paranoia. Even if there is some "fighting off" of the effect, is it a given that such a feeling can be verifiably attributed to a spell effect as opposed to a run-of-the-mill physical (i.e. non-magical) effect?

[Valmark]

To all those advocating the "Roll Initiative" response (or similar hostile reaction) to Charm Psrson, I have to ask if you expect similarly hostile reactions to all spellcasting?

It's pretty well established that magic is, by default, pretty commonplace. Many common races have access to racial spellcasting, if nothing else. As such, a hostile reaction to an unknown spell cast in your general vicinity sounds somewhat like a case of extreme paranoia. Even if there is some "fighting off" of the effect, is it a given that such a feeling can be verifiably attributed to a spell effect as opposed to a run-of-the-mill physical (i.e. non-magical) effect?

I'm not one of those advocating for it but well... If you see someone cast a spell in your direction and feel something trying to influence you it'd take a lot to not think you're being targeted. In fact, it's pretty unbelievable not reacting hostile if possible.

[JellyPooga]

I'm not one of those advocating for it but well... If you see someone cast a spell in your direction and feel something trying to influence you it'd take a lot to not think you're being targeted. In fact, it's pretty unbelievable not reacting hostile if possible.

Therein lies the question; is the feeling of being influenced something strong enough to unquestionably link it to a spell being cast? Is there even any verifiable effect or feeling associated with being influenced? Then there's the question of whether you can tell a spell is being cast "at you" when there's no visible phenomenon associated with the spell beyond its VSM components.

The simple matter is that a spell being cast should not be reason enough, of itself, to provoke a hostile reaction. Regarding the literal "Initiative!" crowd, I believe they're at fault because they're assuming hostile intent for an otherwise common activity (i.e. spellcasting) that could be anything from Meteor Swarm to Mending unless identified. Assuming hostile intent seems...well, paranoid to me.

If (and only if) there's a "fighting off" effect then yes, there's grounds for a more hostile reaction, but it's by no means a given. Yes, you might feel attacked, but that doesn't mean you are being attacked. A considerate, reasonable or skeptical person, for example, might have cause to question their experience before jumping straight to "hostile".

[Composer99]

my question is whether or not a Target who succeeds on his saving throw versus charm person knows that the Caster attempted to charm them?

I'm having an argument with my DM who insists that the target knows that I tried to charm them and he usually responds with hostilities.

My argument is that if they pass the saving throw they were never charmed in the first place therefore the last line doesn't come into effect? "When the spell ends, the creature knows it was Charmed by you."

can anybody help me out here? Any official answers from Sage advice would definitely be helpful in my argument.

What your DM is arguing, at least according to what you have stated, is that if the creature succeeds on its saving throw, it "knows that [you] tried to charm them".

The text you are quoting from the spell only applies to creatures that failed their saving throws, thus becoming charmed by you. As such, it isn't applicable.

The following elements of a spell are perceptible:
- the spell components - that is, the act of casting the spell;
- the spell's effects, if they are perceptible to the senses or if the spell description says they are perceptible in some other way.

While the rules do not explicitly state whether making a saving throw - succeed or fail - allows you to discern that a spell has been cast upon, you, the rules in Xanathar's (pg. 85) state: "Other spells, such as charm person, display no visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible sign of their effects, and could easily go unnoticed by someone unaffected by them." In addition, the text on pg. 204 of the Player's Handbook states: "Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all."

Given that, the rules most strongly support the notion that the effect of spells such as charm person are not perceptible to unaffected creatures (and the target that succeeds on its saving throw is most assuredly unaffected). As a DM I would say that a creature that succeeds on a saving throw against a spell with an imperceptible effect would not know that a spell was cast upon them. (If they could see someone cast a spell and finish casting with no perceptible effect, they might guess or presume that they were the target of a failed spell, of course.)

However, neither text is absolute - it's "might not" in the PHB and "could easily go unnoticed" in Xanathar's (emphasis mine). So I wouldn't fault a DM who rules otherwise.

To sum up:
- If you are casting charm person on a creature and it can perceive you casting a spell, it can reasonably infer that you cast, or tried to cast, a spell, possibly on it. That might be reason for it to become hostile towards you, whether violently so or not, even if it doesn't know for certain that you tried to cast charm person in particular.
- Because of the non-absolute wording of the pertinent rules text, the DM can justifiably rule that succeeding on a Wisdom saving throw makes it plain to a creature that it was targeted by a spell attacking its mind in some way (and other posters have included possible in-game descriptions of such a realisation). In such a case, a creature who can perceive you casting a spell could be almost certain that you were responsible for the mental attack, and respond appropriately.

As such, while it's not how I'd run it myself, I wouldn't say your DM is wrong, exactly.

[Valmark]

Therein lies the question; is the feeling of being influenced something strong enough to unquestionably link it to a spell being cast? Is there even any verifiable effect or feeling associated with being influenced? Then there's the question of whether you can tell a spell is being cast "at you" when there's no visible phenomenon associated with the spell beyond its VSM components.

The simple matter is that a spell being cast should not be reason enough, of itself, to provoke a hostile reaction. Regarding the literal "Initiative!" crowd, I believe they're at fault because they're assuming hostile intent for an otherwise common activity (i.e. spellcasting) that could be anything from Meteor Swarm to Mending unless identified. Assuming hostile intent seems...well, paranoid to me.

If (and only if) there's a "fighting off" effect then yes, there's grounds for a more hostile reaction, but it's by no means a given. Yes, you might feel attacked, but that doesn't mean you are being attacked. A considerate, reasonable or skeptical person, for example, might have cause to question their experience before jumping straight to "hostile".

Well, those talking about people turning hostile are also thse talking about feeling like you're fighting off an effect, aren't they?

And yes, if I see someone cast a spell towards me and I shake off something that suddenly affected me it would be the first link I make, and probably the only one I make. And if the context allows that I'd probably turn hostile if not attack, depending on who they are (and who I am, because messing with spellcasters isn't something anybody would do).

[JoeJ]

IMo that's more information that is required. They don't need to know it's mind affecting, nor that it was a magical effect. All they get to know is they rolled a Wisdom Saving throw. They don't even get to know if they saved or failed.

It may not be required, but it's the way I run it. If you make your save against a magical charm you know that something magical (not necessarily a spell) tried to affect you in some way. If it was a non-magical charm, you know that somebody was really persuasive, but ultimately not convincing. In the first case, you're probably going to be a bit hostile, but won't necessarily know against whom. In the second, you most likely know who was speaking, but aren't necessarily going to take offense.

[Tanarii]

It may not be required, but it's the way I run it. Cant argue with that. :smallamused:

[JellyPooga]

And yes, if I see someone cast a spell towards me

This is the assumption I take issue with the most. How do you know it's "toward" you? That a spell has been cast, yes, I grant that (outside of actively hiding the cast in some way) you know they've cast a spell, but it doesn't follow that you automatically know that it's a) an action directed at you or b) a hostile action at all.

What if there are two (unrelated) spellcasters casting their spells simultaneously? Neither produces any visible effect, but you get a funny feeling of fighting off an unknown effect. Which do you direct your ire at? What if you'd just taken a sip of ale in a tavern and you see this spellcaster doing his thing and you suddenly feel woozy? Is it the evil-bad spellcaster or has the booze just gone to your head? You're a shopkeeper chatting to some customer and he busts out some magic, you feel lightheaded so you immediately jump to the conclusion he's attacking you...but he was actually just conjuring his purse from another dimension to pay you for your services and your feeling was just some bad cheese you ate for breakfast. Going straight to "hostile" means jumping the gun on the intent, the effect and the final result. A plea of "It's ok officer, he cast a spell near me and I felt funny. It was self defence" is probably not going to hold up in a court of law when you're the one holding a bloody blade.

If you're in a position where you're inherently guarded, suspicious or hostile (e.g. a guard on duty at a gate), then regarding the act of spellcasting with appropriate guard, suspicion or hostility is to be expected, but the same cannot be said for situations where it isn't the case; social scenarios, minding your own business, etc. A hostile reaction to a commonplace activity is paranoid at best and prejudiced at worst; it implies a character that is always suspicious or hostile. As a GM, I would have concerns a player was metagaming if they consistently acted in such a way without prior knowledge that they intended their character to be distrustful of magic users in such a way.

[Valmark]

This is the assumption I take issue with the most. How do you know it's "toward" you? That a spell has been cast, yes, I grant that (outside of actively hiding the cast in some way) you know they've cast a spell, but it doesn't follow that you automatically know that it's a) an action directed at you or b) a hostile action at all.

What if there are two (unrelated) spellcasters casting their spells simultaneously? Neither produces any visible effect, but you get a funny feeling of fighting off an unknown effect. Which do you direct your ire at? What if you'd just taken a sip of ale in a tavern and you see this spellcaster doing his thing and you suddenly feel woozy? Is it the evil-bad spellcaster or has the booze just gone to your head? You're a shopkeeper chatting to some customer and he busts out some magic, you feel lightheaded so you immediately jump to the conclusion he's attacking you...but he was actually just conjuring his purse from another dimension to pay you for your services and your feeling was just some bad cheese you ate for breakfast. Going straight to "hostile" means jumping the gun on the intent, the effect and the final result. A plea of "It's ok officer, he cast a spell near me and I felt funny. It was self defence" is probably not going to hold up in a court of law when you're the one holding a bloody blade.

If you're in a position where you're inherently guarded, suspicious or hostile (e.g. a guard on duty at a gate), then regarding the act of spellcasting with appropriate guard, suspicion or hostility is to be expected, but the same cannot be said for situations where it isn't the case; social scenarios, minding your own business, etc. A hostile reaction to a commonplace activity is paranoid at best and prejudiced at worst; it implies a character that is always suspicious or hostile. As a GM, I would have concerns a player was metagaming if they consistently acted in such a way without prior knowledge that they intended their character to be distrustful of magic users in such a way.

Well, (a) is easy. You need to see the target to cast the spell, so the caster is either turned towards you or actively looking at you. If nobody accuses anything it's -usually- a safe assumption that it was at you.
As far as (b) goes casting a spell at a stranger/not a friend without previous warning usually means the caster's hostile or an idiot. You're generally going to assume the first because you don't usually consider strangers to be idiots until proven.

All those examples don't really hold up- they are either edge cases or contexts in which it's not likely to think that a spell was cast at you, assuming you can't discern between (for example) the effect of a beer or the effect of a spell. Which I strongly doubt is a thing, but different DMs run it differently.
Or nonsensical. The shopkeeper is going to see the purse, for example, so thinking they were being attacked is a big leap in logic.

You're also assuming that it's common to have spellcasters cast spells at people in day-to-day activity- it can work in your world, but I doubt that's a thing in most of the groups. If anything it'd be a big security hazard for the city.

[Reynaert]

Here's a simple question to ask youselves:

Under your interpretation, would Charm Person be a spell you would pick for any character?

[JellyPooga]

Well, (a) is easy. You need to see the target to cast the spell, so the caster is either turned towards you or actively looking at you. If nobody accuses anything it's -usually- a safe assumption that it was at you.
As far as (b) goes casting a spell at a stranger/not a friend without previous warning usually means the caster's hostile or an idiot. You're generally going to assume the first because you don't usually consider strangers to be idiots until proven.

All those examples don't really hold up- they are either edge cases or contexts in which it's not likely to think that a spell was cast at you, assuming you can't discern between (for example) the effect of a beer or the effect of a spell. Which I strongly doubt is a thing, but different DMs run it differently.
Or nonsensical. The shopkeeper is going to see the purse, for example, so thinking they were being attacked is a big leap in logic.

You're also assuming that it's common to have spellcasters cast spells at people in day-to-day activity- it can work in your world, but I doubt that's a thing in most of the groups. If anything it'd be a big security hazard for the city.

I'm assuming it's common for people to cast spells during their day-to-day lives, yes. Like I said, several common races have access to racial spellcasting, let alone uncommon or rare ones that might also be part of a populace or those who choose to learn magic. I consider it a standard assumption of 5e D&D that magic is a commonplace part of society.

Again, I'll point out that "casting a spell" is different to "casting a spell at someone", particularly when there is no percievable effect. I'll also point out that rolling Initiative may very well jump the gun on the spells result; in the case of the shopkeeper and purse, if the shopkeeper wins initiative upon seeing the spellcaster start casting, he's shouting for the guard or drawing his cudgel before ever seeing the extra-dimensional purse. In the case of Charm Person, he hasn't rolled his save yet.

In the case where initiative is rolled after the effect, you also have to consider the result. Ok, so you felt like you fought off a spell and there's a "smoking gun" Sorcerer standing there looking shady and you suspect he cast a spell at you (NB you don't know it was him, nor even that a spell was targeted at you at all...you only have suspicions and feelings). What do you do? You have no idea what he actually tried to do. You feel no worse off than you did before. He's not doing anything except looking at you weird (presumably trying to gauge if his spell stuck). You gonna attack this guy? Shout at him? Call for the guard? Sure, I accept that if you're in such a situation, you have call to be suspicious, but openly hostile? That makes you a hostile person. Openly hostile because anyone casts a spell anywhere near you any time you get a funny feeling? That makes you unstable and dangerous.

As far as security hazards go, I think you may be viewing "spellcasting" like it's solely a weapon. Yes, it can be used as a weapon and that's the most common use for adventurers, but you've also got to consider that it's a tool too. In much the same way that a tazer and a mobile phone are "technology" that look sort of similar to an untrained eye. I doubt many people assume that everyone is carrying a tazer around, so when someone nearby pulls a black oblong out of their pocket, only someone paranoid or unstable is dropping into a martial stance or shouting for the po-po.

[Valmark]

Here's a simple question to ask youselves:

Under your interpretation, would Charm Person be a spell you would pick for any character?
Ignoring that I dislike all the various "compulsion" spells in general (as in, a matter of personal taste) I would pick it yes, homewever only if I can Subtle cast it/if I am an aberrant mind sorcerer. Like said before, components are a thing and Charm Person seems to have too much of a risk otherwise.

I'm assuming it's common for people to cast spells during their day-to-day lives, yes. Like I said, several common races have access to racial spellcasting, let alone uncommon or rare ones that might also be part of a populace or those who choose to learn magic. I consider it a standard assumption of 5e D&D that magic is a commonplace part of society.

Again, I'll point out that "casting a spell" is different to "casting a spell at someone", particularly when there is no percievable effect. I'll also point out that rolling Initiative may very well jump the gun on the spells result; in the case of the shopkeeper and purse, if the shopkeeper wins initiative upon seeing the spellcaster start casting, he's shouting for the guard or drawing his cudgel before ever seeing the extra-dimensional purse. In the case of Charm Person, he hasn't rolled his save yet.

In the case where initiative is rolled after the effect, you also have to consider the result. Ok, so you felt like you fought off a spell and there's a "smoking gun" Sorcerer standing there looking shady and you suspect he cast a spell at you (NB you don't know it was him, nor even that a spell was targeted at you at all...you only have suspicions and feelings). What do you do? You have no idea what he actually tried to do. You feel no worse off than you did before. He's not doing anything except looking at you weird (presumably trying to gauge if his spell stuck). You gonna attack this guy? Shout at him? Call for the guard? Sure, I accept that if you're in such a situation, you have call to be suspicious, but openly hostile? That makes you a hostile person. Openly hostile because anyone casts a spell anywhere near you any time you get a funny feeling? That makes you unstable and dangerous.

As far as security hazards go, I think you may be viewing "spellcasting" like it's solely a weapon. Yes, it can be used as a weapon and that's the most common use for adventurers, but you've also got to consider that it's a tool too. In much the same way that a tazer and a mobile phone are "technology" that look sort of similar to an untrained eye. I doubt many people assume that everyone is carrying a tazer around, so when someone nearby pulls a black oblong out of their pocket, only someone paranoid or unstable is dropping into a martial stance or shouting for the po-po.

I said that it's not common to cast spells at people, not that it's not common to cast spells in general.

The shopkeeper drawing a weapon when someone is casting a spell isn't what we are talking about though. The spell needs to have been cast otherwise thinking that you were targeted would be just plain wrong. Same for Charm Person- if the spell hasn't been cast yet you can't possibly fight it off.

What I would do depends on the context, like I said. Attacking somebody is plausible as long as there aren't authorities that should deal with it and you have reason to think that would go well. Like I said before, I wouldn't mess with a spellcaster freely- from OP's words it seems whoever risked getting Charmed has reasonable confidence in themselves.
You're also making it look like it would be common to get a weird effect when someone casts a spell towards your direction. There's no reason for that to happen normally.

Like I said before it's casting spells at people. The taser/cellphone example has no bearing on that, because you aren't using them on strangers outside. The correct example would be if someone pulled out a black thingie and tried to use it on you- in which case, it depends on what happens.

[Rynjin]

This is one in a long line of important rules that were codified in other editions and dropped (not changed, simply omitted and left intentionally[?] vague) in 5e.

I imagine the OP's GM used to play/run 3.5 or Pathfinder. Both have this clause, with the exact same wording:


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

This is likely the intent for 5e as well, or at the very least is easily within the realm of interpretation. I see nothing wrong with a GM running things this way.

[JellyPooga]

I said that it's not common to cast spells at people, not that it's not common to cast spells in general.

You presumed that I'd assumed casting spells at people was common, but your presumption was incorrect. I assumed casting spells in general was common, whether at people or otherwise. Many spells cast at people are beneficial, others harmless, other spells are not directed at people at all, but who or what the target is, is not relevant; how a person reacts to the act of spellcasting is what's at issue here because outside of experiencing a perceivable phenomenon linking the two, the subject cannot know there's a connection. Correlation is not causation. An automatically hostile response, regardless of the specific spell, caster, target and actual end result, when definitive knowledge of those factors is not verified, is ignorant and ill-considered.

My argument is, at it's simplest; "How do you even know the spell is directed at you?". You keep insisting about this "at people" clause, but have not addressed how anyone knows it's a directed effect in the first place. "A dude cast a spell" and "I felt an effect" does not mean "A dude cast a spell on me", let alone you knowing, for certain, that they did.

"Guard! Guard! The funny man said some wibbly-wobbly words and waved his hands and then I felt weird." is a playground response to which I'd expect little more than a "So?" from any kind of authority. Even if the accused is guilty, how could or would you prove it? If you're unable to verify anything, even to yourself, a reasonable response is a cautious one; suspicious as opposed to hostile. That's what I'm getting at.

[Valmark]

You presumed that I'd assumed casting spells at people was common, but your presumption was incorrect. I assumed casting spells in general was common, whether at people or otherwise. Many spells cast at people are beneficial, others harmless, other spells are not directed at people at all, but who or what the target is, is not relevant; how a person reacts to the act of spellcasting is what's at issue here because outside of experiencing a perceivable phenomenon linking the two, the subject cannot know there's a connection. Correlation is not causation. An automatically hostile response, regardless of the specific spell, caster, target and actual end result, when definitive knowledge of those factors is not verified, is ignorant and ill-considered.

My argument is, at it's simplest; "How do you even know the spell is directed at you?". You keep insisting about this "at people" clause, but have not addressed how anyone knows it's a directed effect in the first place. "A dude cast a spell" and "I felt an effect" does not mean "A dude cast a spell on me", let alone you knowing, for certain, that they did.

"Guard! Guard! The funny man said some wibbly-wobbly words and waved his hands and then I felt weird." is a playground response to which I'd expect little more than a "So?" from any kind of authority. Even if the accused is guilty, how could or would you prove it? If you're unable to verify anything, even to yourself, a reasonable response is a cautious one; suspicious as opposed to hostile. That's what I'm getting at.

If you aren't going to talk about specifically casting a spell at people then why are you even arguing it? The whole thread is about Charm Person which one doesn't usually throw at walls. The simple act of spellcasting alone is not something anybody talked about but you, as far as I recall.

Nobody stated that there was going to be an automatic response regardless of the other factors, in fact the opposite was said if at all. Again, unless I forgot somebody. Seems to me that you're just exaggerating it now.

And I did address it. Like I said, if someone casts a spell looking at you and then you feel influenced by something and fight the feeling off while nothing else happened all around it would be pretty illogical to not connect the two, unless you knew something already. At the same time guards ignoring the event would be terrible guards (or ignorant) unless said person is known to cry wolf for anything.
"That person casted a spell looking at me and then something clouded my mind for a second" is exactly the same thing, but perfectly reasonable. Wording it the worst way possible doesn't really help the discussion.

[cookieface]

My argument is, at it's simplest; "How do you even know the spell is directed at you?".

I think that it is logical that the verbal/somatic components of, say, Frostbite are more directed than the verbal/somatic component of, say, Mage Hand.

That is to say, I don't think that a wizard could make gestures and say words with the hopes that Frostbite targets a certain creature without making those gesture and saying those words at that creature.

Or, in the comparison that has been brought up elsewhere: Using Mending (and its verbal/somatic components) would not really work if you were locked into eye contact with the clerk at your local general store rather than focusing on the garment you were attempting to mend. Similarly, Charm Person would not work if you were directing your verbal/somatic components at a torn garment.

(At the very least, "that you can see" implies that you are looking at whatever you are targeting with the spell at the time you are casting the spell.)

In general, even in a world where magic is commonplace, spells that target other creatures/humanoids I expect would still be frowned upon at best and outlawed at worst, in peaceful settings.

[patchyman]

Yep, because it is a well known fact the blind condition grants immunity to charm spells and effects of that nature :smallwink:

Hasn’t come up in my game. But a creature that can neither see nor hear the caster, I’m not sure how they would know who they were charmed by.

[patchyman]

To all those advocating the "Roll Initiative" response (or similar hostile reaction) to Charm Psrson, I have to ask if you expect similarly hostile reactions to all spellcasting?


Pretty much. Enchantment magic exists. If I am not a magic-user, you casting Guidance or Detect Magic looks no different from casting Charm Person or Firebolt.

You can avoid problems by getting consent before launching into a spell (or being a Subtle Sorcerer), casting a spell outside the view of people, or being sufficiently well-known that people trust you not ensorcell them.

But among people who don’t know you, starting to cast a spell is like drawing a weapon anywhere besides a blacksmith shop: people are going to conclude that you intend to use it.

[patchyman]

Here's a simple question to ask youselves:

Under your interpretation, would Charm Person be a spell you would pick for any character?

It absolutely is a useful spell even if restricted. Sorcerer with Subtle, Warlock with Mask of Many Faces, Wizard with Disguise Self or Alter Self. Anybody in a context where you don’t care that the person you are casting against will become hostile to you.

[JellyPooga]

The simple act of spellcasting alone is not something anybody talked about but you, as far as I recall.

Yeah, they know because of verbal and somatic components.
[snip]
Since people only know that a spell is being cast, the act of casting a spell is often considered a hostile action in itself. This is why the act of casting a spell results in an initiative roll before you can do it.

Like others have said, if a caster is in your immediate vicinity and attempts to caste a spell in a way that you notice the somatic and/or verbal components, then yes that is a valid cause for hostilities, as an unknown spell could very well be perceived as an attempted attack.


Nobody stated that there was going to be an automatic response regardless of the other factors, in fact the opposite was said if at all. Again, unless I forgot somebody. Seems to me that you're just exaggerating it now.
No exaggeration. The above two post/quoutes are what caught my attention in the first place and prompted my involvement in the thread.


"That person casted a spell looking at me and then something clouded my mind for a second"

"Can you prove it, sir? Can you provide evidence of or experience further malfeseance?"
"Are you sure they were casting a spell, sir? What, precisely, did you see?"
"Have you been drinking or are you under the influence of any narcotics, sir?"
"What were you doing at the time, sir? Are you sure it was them?"
"Do you have any affiliation with [X, Y, Z anti-spellcaster organisations], sir?"

These are the tired, exasperated questions a flat-foot guard might open with to such an accusation and can largely be reduced to my facetious "So?". Your average guard is not going to immediately assume the accuser is correct and neither should a reasonable person assume their first impression is either. That pause for thought immediately puts a halt to outright hostility and puts it into "suspicion" territory. Only someone paranoid or prejudiced (as I said) or outright barbaric or evil would jump straight to "hostile" on such flimsy and limited influence as "I felt a targeted near a spell being cast".


Pretty much. Enchantment magic exists. If I am not a magic-user, you casting Guidance or Detect Magic looks no different from casting Charm Person or Firebolt.

You can avoid problems by getting consent before launching into a spell (or being a Subtle Sorcerer), casting a spell outside the view of people, or being sufficiently well-known that people trust you not ensorcell them.

But among people who don’t know you, starting to cast a spell is like drawing a weapon anywhere besides a blacksmith shop: people are going to conclude that you intend to use it.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, comparing spellcasting to a weapon is inaccurate. As you say, spells perform a myriad of functions and like many tools can also be turned to violence. Someone pulling out a hammer doesn't mean they're planning to bash your brains in and to react as if you assume they are is not a reasonable response; it's the resonse of the paranoid and unstable.

I'm not advocating or asking for a shrug and a smile in response to spellcasting, just a reasonable doubt before jumping directly to hostilities.

[Valmark]

I think that it is logical that the verbal/somatic components of, say, Frostbite are more directed than the verbal/somatic component of, say, Mage Hand.

That is to say, I don't think that a wizard could make gestures and say words with the hopes that Frostbite targets a certain creature without making those gesture and saying those words at that creature.

Or, in the comparison that has been brought up elsewhere: Using Mending (and its verbal/somatic components) would not really work if you were locked into eye contact with the clerk at your local general store rather than focusing on the garment you were attempting to mend. Similarly, Charm Person would not work if you were directing your verbal/somatic components at a torn garment.

(At the very least, "that you can see" implies that you are looking at whatever you are targeting with the spell at the time you are casting the spell.)

In general, even in a world where magic is commonplace, spells that target other creatures/humanoids I expect would still be frowned upon at best and outlawed at worst, in peaceful settings.
This runs into some problems when you get into stuff like Teleport. That spell allows you to take people that you can see with you, but if you needed to look at a person directly then you wouldn't be able to take more then one person with you.

Imo Charm Person (or any other spells that requires sight) just needs the target in your field of view.

Pretty much. Enchantment magic exists. If I am not a magic-user, you casting Guidance or Detect Magic looks no different from casting Charm Person or Firebolt.

You can avoid problems by getting consent before launching into a spell (or being a Subtle Sorcerer), casting a spell outside the view of people, or being sufficiently well-known that people trust you not ensorcell them.

But among people who don’t know you, starting to cast a spell is like drawing a weapon anywhere besides a blacksmith shop: people are going to conclude that you intend to use it.
Well, weapons and spellcasting are substantially different. There's plenty of spells that don't harm anybody while there's hardly any weapon that doesn't get used as a, well, weapon.

No exaggeration. The above two post/quoutes are what caught my attention in the first place and prompted my involvement in the thread.

"Can you prove it, sir? Can you provide evidence of or experience further malfeseance?"
"Are you sure they were casting a spell, sir? What, precisely, did you see?"
"Have you been drinking or are you under the influence of any narcotics, sir?"
"What were you doing at the time, sir? Are you sure it was them?"
"Do you have any affiliation with [X, Y, Z anti-spellcaster organisations], sir?"

These are the tired, exasperated questions a flat-foot guard might open with to such an accusation and can largely be reduced to my facetious "So?". Your average guard is not going to immediately assume the accuser is correct and neither should a reasonable person assume their first impression is either. That pause for thought immediately puts a halt to outright hostility and puts it into "suspicion" territory. Only someone paranoid or prejudiced (as I said) or outright barbaric or evil would jump straight to "hostile" on such flimsy and limited influence as "I felt a targeted near a spell being cast".

Makes sense, you're right with them, sorry for the misunderstanding. They tecnically didn't say that other factors didn't matter but it seems heavily implied too.

As far as the guards go, while those are legitimate questions not investigating the caster (assuming the 'victim' hasn't replied stuff like 'yeah I was drinking' and the like) at all would still be irresponsible. There's always the risk someone else comes around, or the same person ends up suffering because the guards didn't do anything etc.

And by then it would be way too late.

[Cass]

No exaggeration. The above two post/quoutes are what caught my attention in the first place and prompted my involvement in the thread.



"Can you prove it, sir? Can you provide evidence of or experience further malfeseance?"
"Are you sure they were casting a spell, sir? What, precisely, did you see?"
"Have you been drinking or are you under the influence of any narcotics, sir?"
"What were you doing at the time, sir? Are you sure it was them?"
"Do you have any affiliation with [X, Y, Z anti-spellcaster organisations], sir?"

These are the tired, exasperated questions a flat-foot guard might open with to such an accusation and can largely be reduced to my facetious "So?". Your average guard is not going to immediately assume the accuser is correct and neither should a reasonable person assume their first impression is either. That pause for thought immediately puts a halt to outright hostility and puts it into "suspicion" territory. Only someone paranoid or prejudiced (as I said) or outright barbaric or evil would jump straight to "hostile" on such flimsy and limited influence as "I felt a targeted near a spell being cast".



Like I mentioned in a previous post, comparing spellcasting to a weapon is inaccurate. As you say, spells perform a myriad of functions and like many tools can also be turned to violence. Someone pulling out a hammer doesn't mean they're planning to bash your brains in and to react as if you assume they are is not a reasonable response; it's the resonse of the paranoid and unstable.

I'm not advocating or asking for a shrug and a smile in response to spellcasting, just a reasonable doubt before jumping directly to hostilities.

Previously you argued that magic is by default very common (it isn't, depends on the setting) meaning that no one will be alerted by just some spellcasting. Now you are arguing that guards don't know what magic is?

I was the first to bring up initiative when casting a spell with noticeable components, and I said it depends if it's a friendly environment or not. No, I can't give very specific definitions for it because that's on the DM to judge on the moment, that's why the DM is there.
Also, I ask to roll initiative not necessarily because it has to turn into a combat scenario but to give the target a chance to react if they are quick.

In a setting where magic is very common, if you go to a government structure where entrance is prohibited and as soon as the guards start inquiring your party you start casting a spell, should the guards just stand by and watch you do it because maybe you just came here to make some goodberries?

[JellyPooga]

Previously you argued that magic is by default very common (it isn't, depends on the setting) meaning that no one will be alerted by just some spellcasting. Now you are arguing that guards don't know what magic is?

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that guards familiar with the fact that magic is both commonplace and not necessarily inherently hostile, are going to be sceptical of accusations of malfeseance and are going to investigate before reaching for the torch and pitchfork to burn the witch. Like a reasonable person might. Yes, some societies and people are going to be more extreme, suspicious or even hostile toward the use of magic, but it seems fairly clear from the content of just the core books that by default, the use of magic is both accepted and commonplace. Healing potions, for example, are expensive but freely available for the asking.


I was the first to bring up initiative when casting a spell with noticeable components, and I said it depends if it's a friendly environment or not.
I'm aware and I agree. The context of the scenario will determine whether hostilities are appropriate, not the act of spellcasting, nor it's results. Even being directly assaulted with Firebolt, under the right circumstances, might not result in continued hostility. Fear, submission, awe...all contextually appropriate responses to being burned by magic that aren't open hostility. I'm not responding to this, however, but the claim that hostility in response to any and all spellcasting is not only appropriate but reasonable, perhaps even logical.


In a setting where magic is very common, if you go to a government structure where entrance is prohibited and as soon as the guards start inquiring your party you start casting a spell, should the guards just stand by and watch you do it because maybe you just came here to make some goodberries?

No. Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that guards would and should be suspicious of such activity, just as they might be suspicious of the same group rocking up and whispering among themselves or looking like they're doing something shady...and similarly, I would not expect those same guards to draw steel and attack based solely on any of those prompts. There's a difference between being suspicious or cautious and being hostile.

[Tanarii]

But among people who don’t know you, starting to cast a spell is like drawing a weapon anywhere besides a blacksmith shop: people are going to conclude that you intend to use it.
Thats definitely going to be setting dependent.

But yeah, IMO in any setting where Magic is common enough it's automatically recognized as spellcasting, but not commonly seen daily for non-hostile use, it's going to be treated like drawing a weapon. Even something casting prestidigitation to flavor your food in a crowded tavern would be a very silly thing to do.

Personally it's something I've always glossed over, because I run adventures in wilderness and dungeon adventuring sites. But if you're world building for urban adventuring sites, it's worth figuring that out before someone picks a caster.

[Zhorn]

Hasn’t come up in my game. But a creature that can neither see nor hear the caster, I’m not sure how they would know who they were charmed by.
How much sense that makes to you is somewhat besides the intended point. What I was facetiously getting at with the blue text was the ability for the target to be seeing and/or hearing the caster is not a RAW requirement of the spell.
As the caster, YOU need to be able to see the target within range, and (baring specific exceptions like with Subtle Spell) YOU need to be able to speak and use hand gestures to fulfil the requires somatic and verbal components. The only requirement on the target's end is they need to be a creature of the humanoid subtype.

Does it seem silly that you can charm a blind deaf person? Yes, but it is still possible by RAW.
Adding extra requirements not specified in the text is table ruling. It might not be unreasonable table ruling, but still table ruling all the same.


Thats definitely going to be setting dependent.

But yeah, IMO in any setting where Magic is common enough it's automatically recognized as spellcasting, but not commonly seen daily for non-hostile use, it's going to be treated like drawing a weapon. Even something casting prestidigitation to flavor your food in a crowded tavern would be a very silly thing to do.
Even if it does come across as a paranoid over-reaction to some, at the very least what they are reacting to is a thing which they can react to legitimately view/hear within the bounds of RAW.
I agree in the grander scheme of things, if a DM wants to have almost anyone ready to either throw down to jump to witch hunt level accusations on seeing/hearing someone performing verbal/somatic components, then they should put the thought into why it is that way in their world/setting, and be consistent with such reasoning so it is not only used when convenient to wargame against the party.



This is one in a long line of important rules that were codified in other editions and dropped (not changed, simply omitted and left intentionally[?] vague) in 5e.

I imagine the OP's GM used to play/run 3.5 or Pathfinder. Both have this clause, with the exact same wording:


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

This is likely the intent for 5e as well, or at the very least is easily within the realm of interpretation. I see nothing wrong with a GM running things this way.
Disagree, it's not something that was 'simply omitted'. We have text in the books that flat out goes against this notion of feeling "a hostile force or a tingle" when succeeding on a save.


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 the spell says otherwise.(is there an echo in here?)
and

Other spells, such as charm person, display no visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible sign of their effects, and could easily go unnoticed by someone unaffected by them. As noted in the Player's Handbook, you normally don't know that a spell has been cast unless the spell produces a noticeable effect.
Unless the spell text makes note of an effect that would be perceived, then the spell is not perceived.
And in the case of charm person, it is used as an example of a spell that makes no perceivable signs of its effect.

It's fine to house rule your games to run as though these spells produce some form of sensation. But recognise that it is house ruling, and RAW says otherwise on the matter.
And if you are house ruling that thusly, have the courtesy to tell your players ahead of time and don't spring it on them after they've committed to an action or choice they might have otherwise not made if they were aware you were ruling as such.

[Tanarii]

Even if it does come across as a paranoid over-reaction to some, at the very least what they are reacting to is a thing which they can react to legitimately view/hear within the bounds of RAW.
I agree in the grander scheme of things, if a DM wants to have almost anyone ready to either throw down to jump to witch hunt level accusations on seeing/hearing someone performing verbal/somatic components, then they should put the thought into why it is that way in their world/setting, and be consistent with such reasoning so it is not only used when convenient to wargame against the party.
Of course, the players may not appreciate a world debating if all casters are a loaded gun, they may feel they've suddenly been transported into an X-men universe.

[Unoriginal]

"Can you prove it, sir? Can you provide evidence of or experience further malfeseance?"
"Are you sure they were casting a spell, sir? What, precisely, did you see?"
"Have you been drinking or are you under the influence of any narcotics, sir?"
"What were you doing at the time, sir? Are you sure it was them?"
"Do you have any affiliation with [X, Y, Z anti-spellcaster organisations], sir?"

These are the tired, exasperated questions a flat-foot guard might open with to such an accusation and can largely be reduced to my facetious "So?". Your average guard is not going to immediately assume the accuser is correct and neither should a reasonable person assume their first impression is either. That pause for thought immediately puts a halt to outright hostility and puts it into "suspicion" territory. Only someone paranoid or prejudiced (as I said) or outright barbaric or evil would jump straight to "hostile" on such flimsy and limited influence as "I felt a targeted near a spell being cast".

What if the person the Charm Person was cast was the average guard themselves?



Like I mentioned in a previous post, comparing spellcasting to a weapon is inaccurate. As you say, spells perform a myriad of functions and like many tools can also be turned to violence. Someone pulling out a hammer doesn't mean they're planning to bash your brains in and to react as if you assume they are is not a reasonable response; it's the resonse of the paranoid and unstable.

I'm not advocating or asking for a shrug and a smile in response to spellcasting, just a reasonable doubt before jumping directly to hostilities.

A hammer is generally indentifiable as a hammer at a glance. A spell isn't that easily identifiable, and the effects are generally only felt after the casting is finished.

[JellyPooga]

What if the person the Charm Person was cast was the average guard themselves?

He still has the same reasonable doubts? If he's on duty, actively guarding something, then someone casting a spell could be construed as suspicious activity for sure. So could merely standing there looking shifty.


A hammer is generally indentifiable as a hammer at a glance. A spell isn't that easily identifiable, and the effects are generally only felt after the casting is finished.

"Look out! He's got a tool kit!" he yelled, diving into the innocent woman and bearing her to the ground.
"Get off me fool." the woman snarled at her would-be saviour, pushing the 'hero' off of her.
"But he had a tool kit and was standing near you." he pleaded. "Who knows what tool he was about to pull out?"

The act of spellcasting is also pretty easy to identify at a glance what with the VSM components, but like a hammer-wielders motives and intentions, the specifics are harder to discern.

[Telok]

Honestly I think the simplest thing to do is check what the players do in that circumstance. Ask them what they do when someone walks up to them, starts talking, casts a spell, and they have to roll a save. Ask what they'd do if they had to roll a save with no obvious cause, and then someone walks over and tries to talk them into doing something. Treat their reaction as the normal in-setting response to that sort of action.