I cast Guidance - during a conversation.

[Cheesegear]

My players often find themselves rolling for Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation. Y'know. 'Cause of course they do.

However, when I ask them to make the roll, often, a player will quickly chime in "IcastGuidance!" as though Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation are skills you use when no-one else is around and you've got time.

Uhh...Okay.
You're trying to Persuade someone to do what you want to do. As you're doing so, a friend comes up behind you, casts a spell, and touches you - and also your friend is Concentrating.
...Hold up. The NPC saw that. You're not slick. The DC of the roll just went up...Or y'know what? Roll with Disadvantage 'cause the NPC absolutely doesn't trust you anymore.

My players will often act poorly, in reaction to my NPCs reacting poorly, to a character casting Guidance in the middle of a conversation.

Is this normal for anyone else?

[stoutstien]

Disadvantage or making the check impossible wouldn't be out of line depending on the circumstances.

Most players who want to use guidance regularly should hopefully be cleaver enough to figure out one of the dozen ways to cast it without looking like grima wormtongue.

[Mastikator]

Guidance lasts 1 minute so the players could've cast it first and then went up and then rolled. Why would you decide that the charisma check is rolled during or after the actual conversation? You're just training your players to always cast guidance before they begin to speak to an NPC.

[fbelanger]

Our Dm ask us to use the name of patron or god giving the guidance. It makes the casting more involving during social encounter.

[Lupine]

Our Dm ask us to use the name of patron or god giving the guidance. It makes the casting more involving during social encounter.

I like that.

[Unoriginal]

My players often find themselves rolling for Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation. Y'know. 'Cause of course they do.

However, when I ask them to make the roll, often, a player will quickly chime in "IcastGuidance!" as though Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation are skills you use when no-one else is around and you've got time.

Uhh...Okay.
You're trying to Persuade someone to do what you want to do. As you're doing so, a friend comes up behind you, casts a spell, and touches you - and also your friend is Concentrating.
...Hold up. The NPC saw that. You're not slick. The DC of the roll just went up...Or y'know what? Roll with Disadvantage 'cause the NPC absolutely doesn't trust you anymore.

My players will often act poorly, in reaction to my NPCs reacting poorly, to a character casting Guidance in the middle of a conversation.

Is this normal for anyone else?

As far as I'm concerned, suddenly casting a spell without warning the people around you (and/or having them trust you) is going to get you the same treatment as suddenly pulling out a gun or a grenade and waving it at people.

Identifying a spell as it is cast is difficult, and most people have no way to know what you're casting. Could be Fireball, could be Prestidigiation.

That being said, since PCs are persons in the world, a DM should remind the players "your PC know that doing that will be seen as potentially hostile behavior, do you still want to do it?", because the players have not grown up and lived all their lives in that context.

[Gignere]

Our Dm ask us to use the name of patron or god giving the guidance. It makes the casting more involving during social encounter.

For someone that is religious that wouldn’t even look out of ordinary. Imagining a priest giving a small prayer and crossing his chest before making a speech, bargain or even talking would seem so normal at least to me.

[Cheesegear]

Most players who want to use guidance regularly should hopefully be cleaver enough to figure out one of the dozen ways to cast it without looking like grima wormtongue.

QFT...


You're just training your players to always cast guidance before they begin to speak to an NPC.

I don't see a problem with that. At some point, walking into a room with an active magical effect on them is going to bite them in the arse.
Also, Guidance only goes for a minute, so if the conversation takes longer than that, then the spell wears off. But it still wont be cast during the conversation, in front of someone, usually without warning. Which is the issue.

My players use Guidance as a 'free' +d4 to any skill check that any party member makes outside of combat. Which, to be fair, is exactly what it does. However, there's got to be a limitation on that, and, in my experience; In-the-moment Charisma checks - and Stealth checks, FFS! - should be that limitation.


Identifying a spell as it is cast is difficult, and most people have no way to know what you're casting. Could be Fireball, could be Prestidigiation.

Even if you tell the NPC what you did, they have no reason to believe you, and in fact, given what you just did, may just be inclined to actively not believe you. That's why I tend to rule that casting Guidance in the middle of a conversation should immediately cause the roll to be made with Disadvantage. Which, on average, is -5, which is actually worse than the +1d4 Guidance would give you.

Moral of the story; Don't cast Guidance in the middle of a conversation.

[MoiMagnus]

My players will often act poorly, in reaction to my NPCs reacting poorly, to a character casting Guidance in the middle of a conversation.

Reacting poorly the first time is totally understandable.
There is a big misunderstanding about the setting, which is whether or not casting Guidance during a conversation is something socially acceptable (similar to having makeup to make you look good), something slightly annoying but not aggressive (similar to checking wikipedia on your phone at the middle of a conversation), or something that build distrust.
Casting guidance could even be something socially expected, not doing so could be seen as rushing out your speech and being too lazy to find the most convincing arguments.

[Don't forget that Guidance for social skills can also be used cooperatively, to have the most productive exchange of ideas between two peoples, and use some divine insight to be a better pedagogue. A successful social interaction is IRL often beneficial to both parties compared to a failed one. Though I'd concede that the name of the D&D skills assume that you're manipulating the other side.]

Learning that you misunderstood the universe by taking a penalty rather than by the DM explaining it to you (because it's unlikely that your character was THAT socially oblivious to not know its not ok) can be frustrating.

However, past the first time it occurs, the misunderstanding should have been cleared up, and the players should be aware that casting a spell at the middle of a conversation is not ok in this universe.

[Monster Manuel]

For someone that is religious that wouldn’t even look out of ordinary. Imagining a priest giving a small prayer and crossing his chest before making a speech, bargain or even talking would seem so normal at least to me.

This starts pulling us down the rabbit hole argument of "can I disguise the V,S,M components of a spell as innocuous, or is it obviously a Spell being cast". And, in the interest of not derailing the thread, let's just say ultimately it's the DM's call, and in this case it's pretty clear that the DM considers the act of casting a spell to be obvious to the viewer, so the prayer and gesture that might be part of the spell, in-game, do not appear normal.

I think there ARE ways to make this work, but they're either awkward, or niche. There's no reason you couldn't say to the person you're interacting with "It's vital that you believe me; I'm going to ask my friend the priest to bless my words so that they come out true, is that OK?" Do they have reason to trust you, or the priest you're asking for the blessing? Then that may be an easier Persuasion roll to make than the much harder "please give me your sacred artifact so I can save the world" proposal that's going to follow. So it works, but you've earned it in-game.

The other way I allow this is that this specific thing is one of the highlights of the Divine Soul sorcerer...they can cast a Subtle guidance, which negates their V and S components, making the spell undetectable (there is no M component to Guidance). In this case, yes, all anyone sees is an innocent prayer of "pelor guide me", and it can be dropped in the middle of an ongoing conversation with no issue. Again, they spent the 1 SP on a cantrip, they earned it in-game.

So, it's not that they can NEVER use Guidance in the middle of a social interaction, they just can't do it casually.

[stoutstien]

For someone that is religious that wouldn’t even look out of ordinary. Imagining a priest giving a small prayer and crossing his chest before making a speech, bargain or even talking would seem so normal at least to me.

Might have a different view if you day to day priests' making a small prayer could just a likely be dropping a holy hand grenade.

[noob]

Might have a different view if you day to day priests' making a small prayer could just a likely be dropping a holy hand grenade.

Yes why speak diplomatically when you can explode your opponents?

[Millstone85]

The other way I allow this is that this specific thing is one of the highlights of the Divine Soul sorcerer...they can cast a Subtle guidance, which negates their V and S components, making the spell undetectable (there is no M component to Guidance).I was going to ask about this, as that is exactly what I intend to do with my soul sorcerer.

[Contrast]

As far as I'm concerned, suddenly casting a spell without warning the people around you (and/or having them trust you) is going to get you the same treatment as suddenly pulling out a gun or a grenade and waving it at people.

Identifying a spell as it is cast is difficult, and most people have no way to know what you're casting. Could be Fireball, could be Prestidigiation.

That being said, since PCs are persons in the world, a DM should remind the players "your PC know that doing that will be seen as potentially hostile behavior, do you still want to do it?", because the players have not grown up and lived all their lives in that context.

I think this is overstating things somewhat. Pulling out a gun in a world where the most common use of a gun was to Mend things or Cure things or clean things perhaps. Some social media influencer could probably make my life very unpleasant by making stuff up about me and posting it using their phone but I don't slap the phones out of the hands of strangers I meet.

I would say it might be more akin to pulling out a hammer with no explanation mid-conversation and just standing there hefting it. I wouldn't immediately assume someone was going to hit me with it but I would be wary and confused/cautious - particularly if you're evasive/they don't believe you about what you just cast.

I would point out how suspicious they would be if someone they just met cast a spell in the middle of a conversation with no explanation and subsequently tried to gloss over casting a spell.


My players will often act poorly, in reaction to my NPCs reacting poorly, to a character casting Guidance in the middle of a conversation

The final sentence of Unoriginals I've quoted above is bang on. Let you players know casting Guidance will have a negative effect before they do it as they would know that in character.

[Monster Manuel]

I was going to ask about this, as that is exactly what I intend to do with my soul sorcerer.

This usage seems pretty cut and dry to me, but your mileage may vary. Make sure your DM is on the same page with how this works before commiting a build to it.

But, yeah, with this, Subtle Charm Person, a high CHA and the right skill proficiencies, a social Divine Soul can be a lot of fun...

[Contrast]

This usage seems pretty cut and dry to me, but your mileage may vary. Make sure your DM is on the same page with how this works before commiting a build to it.

But, yeah, with this, Subtle Charm Person, a high CHA and the right skill proficiencies, a social Divine Soul can be a lot of fun...

Just to say I think Enhance Ability is much more sensible as a social spell (you get the adv without them getting a save, you can potentially cast it ahead of time and save yourself the sorc points and you can lessen the creepy mind violation element), with the added advantage of having a lot of other flexible uses which sorcs love (make the clanky plate people more stealthy? Done! Help the party win the drinking contest? Done! etc.). Gotta get as much bang for your buck as you can in terms of spells known.

[Waazraath]

As far as I'm concerned, suddenly casting a spell without warning the people around you (and/or having them trust you) is going to get you the same treatment as suddenly pulling out a gun or a grenade and waving it at people.

Identifying a spell as it is cast is difficult, and most people have no way to know what you're casting. Could be Fireball, could be Prestidigiation.

That being said, since PCs are persons in the world, a DM should remind the players "your PC know that doing that will be seen as potentially hostile behavior, do you still want to do it?", because the players have not grown up and lived all their lives in that context.

Exactly this.

[Thunderous Mojo]

You're trying to Persuade someone to do what you want to do. As you're doing so, a friend comes up behind you, casts a spell, and touches you - and also your friend is Concentrating.
...Hold up. The NPC saw that. You're not slick. The DC of the roll just went up...Or y'know what? Roll with Disadvantage 'cause the NPC absolutely doesn't trust you anymore.

My players will often act poorly, in reaction to my NPCs reacting poorly, to a character casting Guidance in the middle of a conversation.

Is this normal for anyone else?
This seems an extreme reaction to me. Much depends upon the campaign, but in Real Life, people pepper their conversations with exhortations to Divine or Protective spirits quite frequently.

"Heaven Forbid", "the Good Lord willing", etc, etc. Are people suspicious when this happens in real life? Religious people use prayer as a means of centering themselves, to improve performance and for guidance..(the real type).

Are people in rural towns being carted off to prison for being "a spellcaster" for closing their eyes briefly and laying a hand upon their friends shoulder?

Essentially, the above is the physical signs of casting the Guidance cantrip in the middle of a conversation. Doesn't seem excessively threatening, nor super unusual, to me.


As far as I'm concerned, suddenly casting a spell without warning the people around you (and/or having them trust you) is going to get you the same treatment as suddenly pulling out a gun or a grenade and waving it at people..
This is how you deem society treats magic in your game. This should not be presumed to be universal to all games.

So are town guards going to kill someone in the act of casting the Goodberry spell? Like the Ultima Games of yore, do soldiers with halberd just appear whenever a spell is cast within "city limits"? 😉
(Rhetorical Question)

A Fighter can openly carry a Heavy Crossbow, but Presto the Prestidigitator dies because the rabbit they pull out of the hat could be a grenade?

If magic is quotidien, then people probably expect Guidance to be used often and frequently. If magic is rare, then people won't expect it, and certainly wouldn't know what to a actually look for....how many urban based D&D players really know how to "dress an animal", for example.

[Millstone85]

This seems extreme an extreme reaction to me. Much depends upon the campaign, but in Real Life, people pepper their conversations with exhortations to Divine or Protective spirits quite frequently.

"Heaven Forbid", "the Good Lord willing", etc, etc.
Are people suspicious when this happens in real life? Religious people use prayer as a means of centering themselves, to improve performance and for guidance..(the real type).The question would be whether such idioms qualify as verbal components, i.e. "the chanting of mystic words".

I remember being angered by this particular official ruling, as it made the mentioned spells very far from the droids you are not looking for.
Is the sentence of suggestion in the suggestion spell the verbal component, or is the verbal component separate? Verbal components are mystic words (PH, 203), not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.

[Eurus]

My players often find themselves rolling for Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation. Y'know. 'Cause of course they do.

However, when I ask them to make the roll, often, a player will quickly chime in "IcastGuidance!" as though Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation are skills you use when no-one else is around and you've got time.

Uhh...Okay.
You're trying to Persuade someone to do what you want to do. As you're doing so, a friend comes up behind you, casts a spell, and touches you - and also your friend is Concentrating.
...Hold up. The NPC saw that. You're not slick. The DC of the roll just went up...Or y'know what? Roll with Disadvantage 'cause the NPC absolutely doesn't trust you anymore.

My players will often act poorly, in reaction to my NPCs reacting poorly, to a character casting Guidance in the middle of a conversation.

Is this normal for anyone else?

D&D is pretty explicit on the rules for identifying what spell is being cast -- you typically have to be a magical scholar, represented by Arcana (or spellcraft, in 3E) but it's vaguer on how obvious it is that any spell is being cast, and what verbal and somatic components actually look and sound like. When a bard casts a spell, is it a little song and dance number, or an arcane incantation and a finger wiggle? The books really don't say, and it's going to come down to your setting and desires as a DM. Either interpretation is potentially valid, as long as you make it clear to your players ahead of time.



The question would be whether such idioms qualify as verbal components, i.e. "the chanting of mystic words".

I remember being angered by this particular official ruling, as it made the mentioned spells very far from the droids you are not looking for.

...Well, dang. As I was writing this, someone finds the ruling. Usual caveats on Sage Advice apply, but this SAC quote seems to indicate that the "official" ruling is that spells are supposed to always be obvious. "Mystic words" seems to mean that bards don't cast spells with music, and clerics don't cast spells with prayer. I don't like this either, personally. :smallamused:



As far as I'm concerned, suddenly casting a spell without warning the people around you (and/or having them trust you) is going to get you the same treatment as suddenly pulling out a gun or a grenade and waving it at people.

Identifying a spell as it is cast is difficult, and most people have no way to know what you're casting. Could be Fireball, could be Prestidigiation.

That being said, since PCs are persons in the world, a DM should remind the players "your PC know that doing that will be seen as potentially hostile behavior, do you still want to do it?", because the players have not grown up and lived all their lives in that context.

If you interpret spellcasting as non-obvious, it presumably might blend in. If you interpret it as obviously magical, casting a spell mid-conversation is, at minimum, kinda rude. I think the weapon metaphor is way too extreme unless your setting is extremely warlike or magic is considered very rare and dangerous. 5e's class demographics aren't as explicit as 3.5E was, but the cleric class is a pretty significant cultural icon and most magic used in day to day life is probably beneficial. Remove Disease almost certainly sees more use than Fireball, if you have NPC clerics at all.

Personally, I would definitely say that it's reasonable to have people look at you funny if you pause or interrupt a conversation to spend a few seconds mumbling a spell, and if the situation is really sensitive or the people being spoken to are especially magically savvy, they might react defensively. But that's definitely a setting thing! As long as you're communicating the expectations with your players, any interpretation that works for your setting is viable.

[Unoriginal]

This seems an extreme reaction to me. Much depends upon the campaign, but in Real Life, people pepper their conversations with exhortations to Divine or Protective spirits quite frequently.

"Heaven Forbid", "the Good Lord willing", etc, etc. Are people suspicious when this happens in real life? Religious people use prayer as a means of centering themselves, to improve performance and for guidance..(the real type).

Are people in rural towns being carted off to prison for being "a spellcaster" for closing their eyes briefly and laying a hand upon their friends shoulder?

Essentially, the above is the physical signs of casting the Guidance cantrip in the middle of a conversation. Doesn't seem excessively threatening, nor super unusual, to me.

Casting a cantrip with vocal components require mystic sounds, not just evoking the name of a god.

Unless you have the Subtle Spell metamagic, which would indeed let you bless people without obvious signs of your magic.



This is how you deem society treats magic in your game. This should not be presumed to be universal to all games.

So are town guards going to kill someone in the act of casting the Goodberry spell? Like the Ultima Games of yore, do soldiers with halberd just appear whenever a spell is cast within "city limits"? 😉
(Rhetorical Question)

A Fighter can openly carry a Heavy Crossbow, but Presto the Prestidigitator dies because the rabbit they pull out of the hat could be a grenade?

"Openly carrying" and "openly using" are VERY different things. If your Fighter suddenly load their heavy crossbow and take aim in the middle of talking with the Duke, no explanation, how do you expect the Duke and their bodyguards to react?

Same thing apply to magic users. Having a magic wand isn't going to get you shot on sight, but suddenly waving it around and making peculiar sounds is going to make people worried about what you're doing.



If magic is quotidien, then people probably expect Guidance to be used often and frequently. If magic is rare, then people won't expect it, and certainly wouldn't know what to a actually look for....how many urban based D&D players really know how to "dress an animal", for example.

The default expectation, which I use at my table, is that magic is neither rare nor present everywhere. It's uncommon, in the sense that there's maybe 1 out of 100 or 200 people able to use magic, and the default Common magic item costs about as much as a horse. Which means people know that magical things are possible and can see the signs of someone casting a spell, but they won't know the details of how it works or how to recognize the effect in question beyond the obvious.

Same way as most people in a country with cars will recognize "this person is trying to repair a car" if you showed them a video of someone doing it, even if they don't personally know how to repair a car and neither do most people they know.


I think this is overstating things somewhat. Pulling out a gun in a world where the most common use of a gun was to Mend things or Cure things or clean things perhaps. Some social media influencer could probably make my life very unpleasant by making stuff up about me and posting it using their phone but I don't slap the phones out of the hands of strangers I meet.

Good point, but keep in mind that:

1) a phone doesn't have the possibility to be as lethal as a weapon to you (unless it's hiding a weapon, but it's not the default expectation). A spell, on the other hand, could be lethal. Or it could be flavoring your soup. If all phones had a "kill enemy" app, even if it was rarely used, you'd still be much more warry of someone pulling out a phone, no?


2) As I said, people warning they wanted to use a spell to do X, and being considered trustworthy, would make you able to cast your spell most of the time. It's just the "do it without indicator" that would make people at least worry.

[Zhorn]

@Cheesegear, as long as you are consistent with NPCs reacting to Somatic/Verbal components of spell casting, and not just for Guidance, I don't see what you are doing as wrong.
What you are doing is training the players to be aware of those components and not assume them are handwaved away.

Now if they try to incorporate the act of casting into a roleplay, I can see that as being treated a little more leniently. But as noted in some posts above about Verbal components being 'the chanting of mystic words' can make this difficult, but it's a fair difficulty.

[Prince Vine]

...Well, dang. As I was writing this, someone finds the ruling. Usual caveats on Sage Advice apply, but this SAC quote seems to indicate that the "official" ruling is that spells are supposed to always be obvious. "Mystic words" seems to mean that bards don't cast spells with music, and clerics don't cast spells with prayer. I don't like this either, personally.

Not to disagree with your not liking it (totally valid). For a significant chunk of history, certain religions conducted all their prayers in a language most people didn't understand and just trusted that the cleric/scholar was saying the appropriate prayer and not something demeaning/nefarious/inappropriate. Of course the fact that there were multiple learned people in the room usually keeps everything on track, rare was the tirade against Robert the farmhand in the middle of a routine mass. This later became a bit of a fight when someone said "hey, why not pray in common so everyone understands what is going on" (among other abuse of power concerns).

TL;DR There is definitely a precedent of a common prayer being mysterious words of power.

[noob]

Not to disagree with your not liking it (totally valid). For a significant chunk of history, certain religions conducted all their prayers in a language most people didn't understand and just trusted that the cleric/scholar was saying the appropriate prayer and not something demeaning/nefarious/inappropriate. Of course the fact that there were multiple learned people in the room usually keeps everything on track, rare was the tirade against Robert the farmhand in the middle of a routine mass. This later became a bit of a fight when someone said "hey, why not pray in common so everyone understands what is going on" (among other abuse of power concerns).

TL;DR There is definitely a precedent of a common prayer being mysterious words of power.

Yes but there was a lot less firestorm burning people involved.

[Avonar]

I generally don't allow someone to use Guidance unless it was cast before I call for the skill check. There are exceptions of course:

"I want to jump over the pit."
"Alright, roll Athletics."
"I want to use Guidance before he does."

That's fine by me. But something nebulous like a conversation, there's no in game way for a character to know when the skill check is being made, since I'll call for it when the character has finished talking and is waiting for a response. At that point, no you can't use Guidance because it's too late.

Plus as people have said, obviously casting a spell on an ally/yourself before a conversation is going to change to dynamic, very possibly making the other person wary, raising the DC of the check, or for a particularly suspiscious NPC I might just not allow the check at all, the chance is gone. Every spellcaster uses different methods to do magic, so I imagine that pubic magic, especially for a spell like Guidance with no obvious effect, would be treated with suspicion.

[Unoriginal]

For everyone who think that expecting hostility is an overreaction, imagine the following situations:


-The adventuring party is parleying with Priestesses of Lolth about conducting a prisoner exchange. One of the Priestesses suddenly start casting a spell. How do you think the adventurers would react?

-An ambassador has come to talk with the king the PCs are protecting about re-establishing the trade route between their two countries, and has to wait for their turn. Once they're finally in front of the king, they start casting a spell. How would the PCs react, according to you?

-A PC meets a NPC in the street, who asks if they can talk with them about a job offer. The PC agrees. The NPC starts casting a spell. What do you think the PC would do?

-A merchant and their assistant see two people enters the shop, and tell the merchant it's time for them to pay protection money. Then one of the two persons starts uttering words of power and making gestures like the merchant has seen spellcasters do in the past. What do you think the merchant's reaction would be?

[Eurus]

Not to disagree with your not liking it (totally valid). For a significant chunk of history, certain religions conducted all their prayers in a language most people didn't understand and just trusted that the cleric/scholar was saying the appropriate prayer and not something demeaning/nefarious/inappropriate. Of course the fact that there were multiple learned people in the room usually keeps everything on track, rare was the tirade against Robert the farmhand in the middle of a routine mass. This later became a bit of a fight when someone said "hey, why not pray in common so everyone understands what is going on" (among other abuse of power concerns).

TL;DR There is definitely a precedent of a common prayer being mysterious words of power.

That's an interesting point! If "mystic chanting" is associated with prayer, or bardic music, maybe it sees nonmagical uses as well. The specific magic words that can result in a bless spell could be used as a general (nonmagical) blessing by commoners as well.

[Nifft]

Our Dm ask us to use the name of patron or god giving the guidance. It makes the casting more involving during social encounter.

"ASMODEUS GUIDE MY FORKED SILVER TONGUE! Ahem, as I was saying, this contract will be profitable to both of our organizations..."

[Avonar]

"ASMODEUS GUIDE MY FORKED SILVER TONGUE! Ahem, as I was saying, this contract will be profitable to both of our organizations..."

Ah but clearly they'd be saying it in Infernal, I'm sure talking like a demon would be much less worrying.

[JNAProductions]

Notably, Guidance has both Verbal AND Somatic Components. So it's not just words-it's magical gestures.

I would, in most situations, tell the player: "Before you cast this, know that they will recognize you're casting a spell, and they don't know what spell you're casting."

If they're among company that trusts them, or they have a far-spread reputation for honesty and goodness, I'd likely let them do it, provided they explained that "I am casting a spell to seek guidance and better find my words," or something like that.
If they're dealing with strangers or potential foes or anything like that, and they insisted on casting it, I'd let them know: "Doing that is going to start hostilities. It will NOT be usable to sweet-talk them, because for all they know, you just mind-controlled one of them or something."

Subtle Spell, obviously, would allow it to be used freely without alerting them.

[MoiMagnus]

1) a phone doesn't have the possibility to be as lethal as a weapon to you (unless it's hiding a weapon, but it's not the default expectation). A spell, on the other hand, could be lethal. Or it could be flavoring your soup. If all phones had a "kill enemy" app, even if it was rarely used, you'd still be much more warry of someone pulling out a phone, no?


So maybe a better approximation would be a big weird ugly device with wires everywhere, that could be a handcrafted bomb or literally anything else (but a bomb is probably the first thing that come to your mind if the situation is somewhat tense).

[Warder]

Tangential but still related, I don't allow Guidance for actions that take longer than a minute (unless you'd have a secondary character who kept refreshing it on the first character every minute, but so far that has never happened). If you only have divine guidance to nudge you through the first minute of a conversation and you're left to your own devices to fumble your way through the last 15 minutes, that's not worth a bonus to me.

[heavyfuel]

If you cast a spell in the middle of a conversation, odds are that things are about to turn sour. Unless the NPC is also a spellcaster who identifies the spell as being harmless (and Guidance isn't harmless btw, they'll know the spell will help you gain some advantage over them), you better be ready to have the NPC automatically deny you because they don't trust you anymore.

[Jakinbandw]

Hmm. So if I'm playing a Rouge, and we kill the boss monster, when the wizard casts to detect magic items, I'm technically in the right to shank him, because I didn't know he wasn't casting mind control on us. It would be in fact the social correct thing to do. Any time a caster goes to cast a spell, the correct response is for everyone around to attack them just in case.

And that's why there are so few wizards!

[Contrast]

Good point, but keep in mind that:

1) a phone doesn't have the possibility to be as lethal as a weapon to you (unless it's hiding a weapon, but it's not the default expectation). A spell, on the other hand, could be lethal. Or it could be flavoring your soup. If all phones had a "kill enemy" app, even if it was rarely used, you'd still be much more warry of someone pulling out a phone, no

Hence why I think pulling out a hammer (or a baseball bat or a crowbar or something of that ilk) is a better analogy than a gun generally speaking. It's a tool but can also be used for violence and...why did you just bring it out in the middle of a shop while taking to the shop keep stranger...:smallannoyed::smallconfused: If you don't have a reasonable answer to that question you've going to be facing a whole heaping of suspicion (and 'I was trying to use magic to favourably influence you' probably isn't a great excuse).

[Segev]

"Do you mind if we open the discussion with a prayer?" probably isn't too far out of line in a setting with religions abounding. It think it also notable that friends calls out that targets know you used magic to influence them, while guidance is both cast on the skill-user and doesn't state that anybody feels unduly influenced. "May Bardicus Silvertongue put his best foot forward, by the grace of the gods," is probably not going to offend anybody.

[JoeJ]

Find out how the PCs respond when an NPC casts an unknown spell during a conversation, then assume that their reaction is also typical for NPCs.

[Amnestic]

"Do you mind if we open the discussion with a prayer?" probably isn't too far out of line in a setting with religions abounding. It think it also notable that friends calls out that targets know you used magic to influence them, while guidance is both cast on the skill-user and doesn't state that anybody feels unduly influenced. "May Bardicus Silvertongue put his best foot forward, by the grace of the gods," is probably not going to offend anybody.

I mean, if I'm entering into negotiations and then someone casts a magic spell - even one that doesn't explicitly target me - I'd be a bit less eager to continue. If people know there's magic that makes people better at influencing others (eg. glibness, enhance ability) and then you see magic get cast? Nah, I cut off negotiations there. I'm no rube, I ain't a mook, and I ain't getting taken for a ride by your hoighty toighty spellcasters, capiche.

[MoiMagnus]

'I was trying to use magic to favourably influence you'

Though in the case of guidance, depending on the setting, you could go in the fully honest path and say "I'm asking for divine insight to not commit any diplomatic mistake" or something alike.

[JNAProductions]

Hmm. So if I'm playing a Rouge, and we kill the boss monster, when the wizard casts to detect magic items, I'm technically in the right to shank him, because I didn't know he wasn't casting mind control on us. It would be in fact the social correct thing to do. Any time a caster goes to cast a spell, the correct response is for everyone around to attack them just in case.

And that's why there are so few wizards!

There's a difference between "Hello stranger, let me cast a spell to better talk to you!" and your comrade-in-arms who you just slew a boss baddy with casting a spell.

[heavyfuel]

Hmm. So if I'm playing a Rouge, and we kill the boss monster, when the wizard casts to detect magic items, I'm technically in the right to shank him, because I didn't know he wasn't casting mind control on us. It would be in fact the social correct thing to do. Any time a caster goes to cast a spell, the correct response is for everyone around to attack them just in case.

And that's why there are so few wizards!

Presumably you have had plent of opportunity to build trust with your Player Character ally who happens to be a Wizard. Probably enough to the point that if he says "hey, I'm going to make a ritual here to see if any of these items are magic or not" you're not gonna doubt him. I mean, you might. But you probably won't.

It is very different, however, when you're dealing with a delicate situation where the NPCs don't know your characters. Suddenly, someone on your team starts casting a spell, and they have no reason to believe it isn't going to be a Fireball in their faces or a mind-control spell.


"Do you mind if we open the discussion with a prayer?" probably isn't too far out of line in a setting with religions abounding. It think it also notable that friends calls out that targets know you used magic to influence them, while guidance is both cast on the skill-user and doesn't state that anybody feels unduly influenced. "May Bardicus Silvertongue put his best foot forward, by the grace of the gods," is probably not going to offend anybody.

That works if that's how your DM rules casting Guidance (or any other spell) works.

I'm more of the feeling that magic with vocal and somatic components are magical words and a very specific set of gestures, not just a regular phrase with any gesture. You're not saying "May Bardicus Silvertongue put his best foot forward". You're chanting in faux-latin for a few seconds while making extremely weird hand gestures.

A layperson won't know the difference between a Guidance and a Firebolt, but they'll definitely know you started casting a spell.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Notably, Guidance has both Verbal AND Somatic Components. So it's not just words-it's magical gestures.
I have an uncle with tourette syndrome. It is amazing how easy it is to 'edit out' from one's active attention, a regularly occurring verbal tic/movement combination.

A simple wave of the wrist,(that could easily be mistaken as stretching), and uttering "Shazam" could be the somatic and verbal components of a spell.

Using your hand to make a brief circle and saying "Cheesus Perserve us!", meets all of the requirement criteria for a Guidance spell.

How intricate or noticeable spellcasting is, and how spellcasting is received by onlookers, is campaign specific.

"Boil, boil, toil and Trouble" looks and sounds good on a stage, but isn't necessarily what 'actual' spellcasting looks or sounds like.

[heavyfuel]

I have an uncle with tourette syndrome. It is amazing how easy it is to 'edit out' from one's active attention, a regularly occurring verbal tic/movement combination.

A simple wave of the wrist,(that could easily be mistaken as stretching), and uttering "Shazam" could be the somatic and verbal components of a spell.

It's probably easy for people in the real world to edit out thse gestures because when someone makes these gestures in the real world, they aren't followed by explosions.

If magic were real and powerful as it is in D&D, you can bet your butt people would start noticing when a stranger decided to make gestures and utter strange words.

It's easy to imagine someone who has never seen a gun before (like small children) not being frightened of one. But wave a pistol in a conversation and you'll see people freaking out.

[cookieface]

I'm more of the feeling that magic with vocal and somatic components are magical words and a very specific set of gestures, not just a regular phrase with any gesture. You're not saying "May Bardicus Silvertongue put his best foot forward". You're chanting in faux-latin for a few seconds while making extremely weird hand gestures.

In order to avoid every class seeming like different versions of the same kind of magic-user, I think it is well within reason to say that Cleric spells (at least ones like Guidance, or Healing Prayer) take the form of some kind of ritualistic prayer. Probably not in Common tongue still.

But I think the reaction would be a bit different if a person in long colorful robes came in, touched his friend on the shoulder, said some weird arcane jargon while his eyes went kinda blank, versus a priestly figure making blessing-like hand gestures (ie sign of the cross, or hands together in prayer) and speaking in something latin-esque.

Basically, if you can make it work for RP reasons why the spell could appear less threatening, then I'd let it slide. That will be easier for a Cleric casting Guidance than a Wizard casting Friends, IMO.

[Battlebooze]

By Grognard's Hammer, this probably isn't a big deal unless your god is one that the person you are talking with dislikes.

People say grace before eating dinner all the time in real life and don't get shanked for it. Casting Guidance is just a simple gesture and a plea to your god. You're not saying loudly, "Please Gygax, help me to sucker this merchant into buying this worthless fake golden statue!"

The only problem that I've seen with people abusing Guidance is using it in an extended activity like stealth or trying to hold their breath.

[Gallowglass]

My players often find themselves rolling for Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation. Y'know. 'Cause of course they do.

However, when I ask them to make the roll, often, a player will quickly chime in "IcastGuidance!" as though Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation are skills you use when no-one else is around and you've got time.

Uhh...Okay.
You're trying to Persuade someone to do what you want to do. As you're doing so, a friend comes up behind you, casts a spell, and touches you - and also your friend is Concentrating.
...Hold up. The NPC saw that. You're not slick. The DC of the roll just went up...Or y'know what? Roll with Disadvantage 'cause the NPC absolutely doesn't trust you anymore.

My players will often act poorly, in reaction to my NPCs reacting poorly, to a character casting Guidance in the middle of a conversation.

Is this normal for anyone else?


Let me play devil's advocate here:

If you've ever spend much time in a monastary or a clerical setting in real life, you'll notice the monk's and priests are constantly doing little prayers and rituals. Everything has a little mutterance or motion tied to it. That's in our modern, real-life, world. prayers for eating, prayers for resting, prayers for ****ting, prayers for everything.

In a fantasy setting where Gods are unequivocally real and priests and wizards are a fundamental part of life, I would easily imagine that expanded to the entire populace and be normal in social settings. Seeing someone who is obviously devout or wearing a holy symbol muttering a blessing before an action like engaging in barter or asking a question... you could argue persuasively that it wouldn't stand out that much or be especially notable.

In fact, in a fantasy setting where one out of 10 people on the street have a level in a magic using class, I could be persuaded that everyone would be somewhat inured to spellcasters casting little spells left and right. Especially from the devout (divine casters) who are normally seen as more trustworthy.

But what I would really ask myself as a GM in this situation is how much do I want to punish my players for using their powers. And how much do I want to slow down the game to accommodate them gaming around whatever arbitrary restrictions I slap in place.

Do I really want to run a game where the spellcaster says "every 10 minutes I cast my cantrip so it's up and running if I need it" or "everytime we go shopping, player A (with the best bluff) will go talk to the shopkeeper. Before that player b (the wizard) puts us a message spell between us and player c (the priest) will linger one shelf over. Whenever he hears the player say "So, getting to brass tacks then" that's his queue to cast guidance whispering under his breath and hiding his hand movements in his sleeves. Also player D (the bard) will linger nearby and use aid other by saying things like "Wow that sounds like a bargain" or "I heard they are selling it for 10% less over at Donaldson's tack and saddlery"

I know I don't. That get's old real fast for everyone.

[cookieface]

It's probably easy for people in the real world to edit out thse gestures because when someone makes these gestures in the real world, they aren't followed by explosions.

If magic were real and powerful as it is in D&D, you can bet your butt people would start noticing when a stranger decided to make gestures and utter strange words.

It's easy to imagine someone who has never seen a gun before (like small children) not being frightened of one. But wave a pistol in a conversation and you'll see people freaking out.

You bring up something I've thought about before -- would the average person be aware that Fireball is a spell that can happen? It's not like in most settings they'd get a newspaper describing how adventurers defeated the dragon, or a magazine with the hot new spells that just were discovered.

While it is reasonable for them to know magic and spells exist, I think it is likely they might only be aware of stuff like cantrips or first-level spells. Anything beyond that is rare and unlikely to be used in a low-danger setting.

If the layperson were aware Fireball, or Meteor Storm, or Wish -- or even something like Create/Destroy Water! -- were things that magic-users were capable of, then I think you'd be hardpressed to find a small village that was willing to give shelter to an arcane magic user. Prejudice is strong, and imaginations can run amok. An innkeeper who sees a wizard would likely always assume they are casting enchantment spells on them, and will turn them away on sight rather than be cheated out of some gold.

[heavyfuel]

Casting Guidance is just a simple gesture and a plea to your god.

Again, that depends on how the DM interprets Vocal components (as well as Somatic ones)

You can't generalize and say that "this is what Guidance is". At best this is how guidance is in some games.

[JNAProductions]

Again, that depends on how the DM interprets Vocal components (as well as Somatic ones)

You can't generalize and say that "this is what Guidance is". At best this is how guidance is in some games.

I'll echo that.

Is Guidance a simple verbal and gesturing supplication? "Pelor guide me," as you look to the heavens? Then yeah, you can probably use that in conversation.
If Guidance is a very specific intonation and gesture, with the person clearly casting a spell? Then no, using it in a tense conversation is liable to end poorly.

[Battlebooze]

If the layperson were aware Fireball, or Meteor Storm, or Wish -- or even something like Create/Destroy Water! -- were things that magic-users were capable of, then I think you'd be hardpressed to find a small village that was willing to give shelter to an arcane magic user. Prejudice is strong, and imaginations can run amok. An innkeeper who sees a wizard would likely always assume they are casting enchantment spells on them, and will turn them away on sight rather than be cheated out of some gold.

I don't know, I think I'd be extra nice to the robed man who could destroy my puny village with a gesture and a word. Or break my mind, or make me rich...

He just wants to buy some beer anyway!

In a world where Dragons and Demons and Gods are real, having a nice Wizard around is a good thing, unless they have a bad rep on a personal level.

[heavyfuel]

You bring up something I've thought about before -- would the average person be aware that Fireball is a spell that can happen? It's not like in most settings they'd get a newspaper describing how adventurers defeated the dragon, or a magazine with the hot new spells that just were discovered.

While it is reasonable for them to know magic and spells exist, I think it is likely they might only be aware of stuff like cantrips or first-level spells. Anything beyond that is rare and unlikely to be used in a low-danger setting.

That's a fair point, and it's going to vary drastically between game-worlds. In most settings I play/DM, magic is at least somewhat common. Even a commoner has probably seen a priest or a druid performing magic at some point, and while there's no newspaper, there're definitely rumors of magic users that say magic words and then you die or lose your mind or turn into a chicken.

I mean, these rumors existed in the real world even though they weren't real. It makes sense that they also exist in D&D.

If you're not a commoner, but say, a merchant that's used to dealing with adventurers, or guild leader, or noble (or pretty much anything other than a commoner, really) then odds are you know that magic can be dangerous. You didn't get to be ruler of anything without having experienced some magic. If you are a soldier, odds are you've seen the local wizard support you in battle with explosions (and maybe you even had explosions used on you by the opposing wizard)

[cookieface]

That's a fair point, and it's going to vary drastically between game-worlds. In most settings I play/DM, magic is at least somewhat common. Even a commoner has probably seen a priest or a druid performing magic at some point, and while there's no newspaper, there're definitely rumors of magic users that say magic words and then you die or lose your mind or turn into a chicken.

I mean, these rumors existed in the real world even though they weren't real. It makes sense that they also exist in D&D.

If you're not a commoner, but say, a merchant that's used to dealing with adventurers, or guild leader, or noble (or pretty much anything other than a commoner, really) then odds are you know that magic can be dangerous. You didn't get to be ruler of anything without having experienced some magic. If you are a soldier, odds are you've seen the local wizard support you in battle with explosions (and maybe you even had explosions used on you by the opposing wizard)

These are all good points. For sure, a city setting will have a different knowledge of magic than a rural one.

I think my broader point was simply that, if you want perfect realism in a world where people can cast Fireball and murder a dozen commoners in an instant, then parading around looking like a wizard is likely going to result in exactly zero "normal" social interactions. Everyone will either fear you or revere you, and act accordingly.

I don't think that is a reasonable action. So hand-waving "yeah, wizards and magic exist, but commoners tend to ignore it for simplicity's sake in the story-telling" is A-OK with me. Those same commoners will freak out if someone casts a spell near them, but Cleric spells and Wizard spells will have different connotations.

[Amnestic]

Casting guidance isn't just a 'prayer to a god'. Verbal Components are beyond that.

PHB 203

Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.


It's not a normal prayer, it's not a gentle "hey godbro help me out", it's written specifically to say "this isn't something you can cover up as conversation words".

Somatic components, likewise aren't just a minor shrug or whatever, they (same page)



might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.


You're not jedi mind tricking with a casual wave of the hand. Forceful gesticulation or intricate set of gestures are very clearly much more than that.

If you wanna give people a free subtle spell, cool, as a DM go nuts, but that's a houserule and the PHB rules are pretty explicit - if you're casting a spell with components, it's obvious that you're doing so. Those in the vicinity don't need to be able to identify what spell it is (though with a DC15 arcana check they've got a likely minimum 25% chance of doing so) but they automatically can identify it as magic unless they're literally living under a rock.

[TIPOT]

I think it's a point as well that even when the npc can recognise that the spell is "just" guidance then isn't that worth giving disadvantage by itself? That's using magic to make your argument more persuasive. There's not much difference between that and using suggestion or charm person really.

[Battlebooze]

Again, that depends on how the DM interprets Vocal components (as well as Somatic ones)

You can't generalize and say that "this is what Guidance is". At best this is how guidance is in some games.

Well, unlike Suggestion, there is nothing in the Guidance spell description that says that you have to plead with your characters deity for a specific outcome. Sure, you could run it that way if you liked, but that seems more like a borderline houserule.

Given how useful Guidance is, I can only imagine most lay people assume Clerics walk around casting Guidance because it's a religious ritual.

If you think the Cleric is abusing Guidance, the games master is also free to say, "Grognard is busy right now, he doesn't help you. Maybe you've been using Guidance more than he likes."

[JNAProductions]

Well, unlike Suggestion, there is nothing in the Guidance spell description that says that you have to plead with your characters deity for a specific outcome. Sure, you could run it that way if you liked, but that seems more like a borderline houserule.

Given how useful Guidance is, I can only imagine most lay people assume Clerics walk around casting Guidance because it's a religious ritual.

If you think the Cleric is abusing Guidance, the games master is also free to say, "Grognard is busy right now, he doesn't help you. Maybe you've been using Guidance more than he likes."

So, just to be clear-you're advocating that it's better to straight-up deny a player use of their cantrip, because they used the at-will ability too much, rather than making it clear that casting a spell is casting a spell, and that's not something you do during a talk that's worth rolling a check for.

Because that's really the only thing I'm getting from that.

[Battlebooze]

So, just to be clear-you're advocating that it's better to straight-up deny a player use of their cantrip, because they used the at-will ability too much, rather than making it clear that casting a spell is casting a spell, and that's not something you do during a talk that's worth rolling a check for.

Because that's really the only thing I'm getting from that.


Hah, well, you know this game is about roleplaying, and part of that with a Cleric might include some roleplaying with your Diety.

I don't know, WHAT are you getting from that?

That I might as a GM, roleplay a Deity not being thrilled that his personal representative is calling upon his divine power to get a cheaper beer?

Cause yea, I might do that. Sorry.

[Nifft]

That I might as a GM, roleplay a Deity not being thrilled that his personal representative is calling upon his divine power to get a cheaper beer?

This is why you CharOp by worshiping the god of beer and bargains.

[Battlebooze]

This is why you CharOp by worshiping the god of beer and bargains.

Dwarven Clerics have life easy. :D

[Anymage]

This is why you CharOp by worshiping the god of beer and bargains.

No, no. If the DM is forcing you to play "mother may I" before any of your spells come on line, you worship the god of bringing beer and pizza.

[JNAProductions]

Hah, well, you know this game is about roleplaying, and part of that with a Cleric might include some roleplaying with your Diety.

I don't know, WHAT are you getting from that?

That I might as a GM, roleplay a Deity not being thrilled that his personal representative is calling upon his divine power to get a cheaper beer?

Cause yea, I might do that. Sorry.

If you houserule that Guidance is not easily recognizable as casting a spell, that's fine. I wouldn't do that with all spells, but for something like that cantrip? Sure, no biggie.

But if you THEN make another houserule that if you use Guidance too much, you can't use it, that's just... Mean. You're making it easier for the player to use it in all situations, and then saying "Ha, if you use it in all situations, I'll punish you for it!"

[Damon_Tor]

My players often find themselves rolling for Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation. Y'know. 'Cause of course they do.

However, when I ask them to make the roll, often, a player will quickly chime in "IcastGuidance!" as though Persuasion, Deception and Intimidation are skills you use when no-one else is around and you've got time.

Uhh...Okay.
You're trying to Persuade someone to do what you want to do. As you're doing so, a friend comes up behind you, casts a spell, and touches you - and also your friend is Concentrating.
...Hold up. The NPC saw that. You're not slick. The DC of the roll just went up...Or y'know what? Roll with Disadvantage 'cause the NPC absolutely doesn't trust you anymore.

My players will often act poorly, in reaction to my NPCs reacting poorly, to a character casting Guidance in the middle of a conversation.

Is this normal for anyone else?

If your player just says "I cast guidance" then yeah, maybe don't have it work properly.

If they actually roleplay the interaction, I have no issue with it.


...

"Please, your grace." the knight implores. "You must understand the grave threat the lich poses to your kingdom. You must allow me to wield your ancestral blade!"

The king furrows his brow at the paladin, unsure of his true motives. His armor gleams as bright as any, but the ruler has known too many shining knights with darkened souls.

As the king considers the request, the cleric steps forward and rests his hand lightly on the paladin's shoulder. "Blessed be thy words, ser!" he speaks, softly but with conviction. "Se indóme kal... May Corellon guide your tongue, so the wise king will know you speak true!"

"Did not your grandfather lend the blade to a champion some seventy years ago?" the wizard steps forward, stroking his beard. "Yes, during the opening of the dark rift I believe. How many lives did your grandfather save with that decision, your highness?"

"My king..." The paladin kneels "I swear upon my honor, I will smite the lich and return the blade to you, or I will die in the attempt. I do hereby vow."

The king nods, having heard enough. "Very well, you will have the blade. However, there is one condition."

...

Here, the cleric casts guidance and the wizard uses help mid-conversation. Neither seem out of place.

Guidance is not a charm effect. He's not debuffing the insight score of the King or anything like that, he's calling on his god to help the Paladin find the right words.

[Amnestic]

As a monarch who's no doubt experienced with seeing magic - probably got a court arcanist and a court cleric on hand - seeing people cast spells to help them convince me of something isn't going to convince me. If they're being truthful, honest and good people, then why do they need magic?

[Battlebooze]

Hmmm. From what I see now, I think it would be very realistic if NPC's get upset if you casually cast Guidance around them in a fantasy setting.

[MoiMagnus]

As a monarch who's no doubt experienced with seeing magic - probably got a court arcanist and a court cleric on hand - seeing people cast spells to help them convince me of something isn't going to convince me. If they're being truthful, honest and good people, then why do they need magic?

Though that's not how this work. Just because you're truthful and honest doesn't mean you will manage to convince someone of something true. They don't need magic, but magic helps. Like being polite, you don't need to be polite to convince someone (and if you're "too polite" it can even be suspect), but that doesn't mean that being polite is not a good thing when you try to convince someone. You don't need to wear fine cloths in front of the king, but it helps to be credible.

Though if guidance is socially acceptable, the monarch probably has his personal cleric cast Guidance on him continuously, and everyone would find it normal to talk while being under guidance as it improves your vocabulary, your insight, and generally makes you a better gentleman.

[JoeJ]

One thing you might consider is, instead of using the DCs in the DMG to influence an NPC, make it a contested ability check against the target's Wisdom (Insight), or whatever other ability and proficiency you think should apply in a particular circumstance. Not only is a little more realistic, in that every NPC isn't equally easy to influence, but it also means that the NPCs can benefit from Guidance (if they have it available) just like the PCs can.

[JNAProductions]

One thing you might consider is, instead of using the DCs in the DMG to influence an NPC, make it a contested ability check against the target's Wisdom (Insight), or whatever other ability and proficiency you think should apply in a particular circumstance. Not only is a little more realistic, in that every NPC isn't equally easy to influence, but it also means that the NPCs can benefit from Guidance (if they have it available) just like the PCs can.

I wouldn't use a flat DC for convincing any random person to do [THING]. I'd base the DC on how friendly they are towards you, how much they like doing [THING], and anything else relevant.

I would not base it on Wisdom (Insight). The king, who's wise even beyond his many years, and has trained extensively to pick up even the slightest hint of lies or deceit as his courts are full of power-hungry liars, should not have a super high DC or opposed check to convince him to help you fend off the orcs encroaching on his kingdom.

[Amnestic]

Though that's not how this work. Just because you're truthful and honest doesn't mean you will manage to convince someone of something true. They don't need magic, but magic helps. Like being polite, you don't need to be polite to convince someone (and if you're "too polite" it can even be suspect), but that doesn't mean that being polite is not a good thing when you try to convince someone. You don't need to wear fine cloths in front of the king, but it helps to be credible.

Though if guidance is socially acceptable, the monarch probably has his personal cleric cast Guidance on him continuously, and everyone would find it normal to talk while being under guidance as it improves your vocabulary, your insight, and generally makes you a better gentleman.

I'm a monarch. Having magic cast on me to enhance myself by my trusted court cleric is of course acceptable, because I'm in charge. People using magic to influence me, even if indirectly, not so much. You say it's "just guidance" but I can't be sure of that and my court cleric probably has only a 50/50 chance of identifying it correctly (DC15, with advantage). Maybe it's Glibness, and suddenly I can't use magic to tell if you're lying or telling the truth, and I'm naturally predisposed to believe anything you say. Maybe it's some other spell that I'm not aware of because I'm a character who doesn't have access to the PHB Spell List, and taking you at your word that it's just "to help me believe you" is pretty suspect, actually.

Guidance certainly has a place in dealing with some ability checks, but I cannot see a realistic application for the charisma side of things if you're going by the rules in the book.

[Anymage]

I'm a monarch. Having magic cast on me to enhance myself by my trusted court cleric is of course acceptable, because I'm in charge. People using magic to influence me, even if indirectly, not so much. You say it's "just guidance" but I can't be sure of that and my court cleric probably has only a 50/50 chance of identifying it correctly (DC15, with advantage). Maybe it's Glibness, and suddenly I can't use magic to tell if you're lying or telling the truth, and I'm naturally predisposed to believe anything you say. Maybe it's some other spell that I'm not aware of because I'm a character who doesn't have access to the PHB Spell List, and taking you at your word that it's just "to help me believe you" is pretty suspect, actually.

Guidance certainly has a place in dealing with some ability checks, but I cannot see a realistic application for the charisma side of things if you're going by the rules in the book.

I think it's fair that if the king's retainers are keeping an eye on you, they'll be able to recognize that it's Guidance as opposed to some other spell. I also think it's reasonable to have fluff that, while clearly supernatural, also makes it clear who is and is not being affected by the spell. (E.G: if the cleric's hand glows with holy light that then flows into the touched target, I don't think any DM would have a problem with that description and I also think it makes it crystal clear that the spell is affecting the PC as opposed to anyone else.) If you have reason to cast Guidance and expressly communicate as much, it should be okay. The king's top diplomat may prefer to have the upper hand in negotiations, but it Guidance also makes it less likely for things to break down completely both sides should be okay with trusted priests casting Guidances all around. (They'll also want to have trusted priests or wizards on their own side to make sure it's just Guidance and maybe Enhance Ability, with no funny business like Glibness getting thrown in.)

Fully agreed, though. Casting any spell without giving other people a heads up will stand a good chance of attracting notice, because that spell could be anything. And casting an unknown spell is going to put people on edge. Even if it turns out to clearly only affect you or an ally, don't expect people to let you into games or competitions immediately afterwards.

[JoeJ]

I would not base it on Wisdom (Insight). The king, who's wise even beyond his many years, and has trained extensively to pick up even the slightest hint of lies or deceit as his courts are full of power-hungry liars, should not have a super high DC or opposed check to convince him to help you fend off the orcs encroaching on his kingdom.

Why not? The king is opposed to the idea to begin with; that's implied by having a roll at all. If he had no objections you wouldn't need to persuade him, he'd simply accept the offer immediately. So why wouldn't the king you described be especially resistant to being talked into doing something he doesn't think he should do?

[Elbeyon]

Magic, cantrips especially, are pretty common. A commoner has seen more cantrips than any other spell. They've probably seen people use guidance hundreds of times during their life. The average person has experiences and reasons to trust magic.

[Angelalex242]

I would say a Cleric casting guidance before opening his mouth looks something like, "Pelor/Lathander, please bless my voice." as he holds his holy symbol.

Assuming the NPC doesn't have a problem with Pelor specifically, I don't see a reason to impose disadvantage or anything like that. It might even grant advantage if the NPC happens to be a devout of Pelor!

In short, Guidance should depend on how that particular NPC views the God being invoked at the time.

[king_steve]

I would say a Cleric casting guidance before opening his mouth looks something like, "Pelor/Lathander, please bless my voice." as he holds his holy symbol.

Assuming the NPC doesn't have a problem with Pelor specifically, I don't see a reason to impose disadvantage or anything like that. It might even grant advantage if the NPC happens to be a devout of Pelor!

In short, Guidance should depend on how that particular NPC views the God being invoked at the time.

The spell has a Vocal and Somatic component, but no material component so it wouldn't involve a holy symbol. Guidance can also be learned by classes other than clerics so I'm not sure its required to involve a deity.

It's also can be difficult to identify the cantrip/spell being cast. In XGTE there are additional rules for identifying spells requiring a DC 15 (15 + spell level, cantrip would be flat 15) arcana check as an action or reaction.

[JNAProductions]

Why not? The king is opposed to the idea to begin with; that's implied by having a roll at all. If he had no objections you wouldn't need to persuade him, he'd simply accept the offer immediately. So why wouldn't the king you described be especially resistant to being talked into doing something he doesn't think he should do?

Let me put it this way.

The King has a massive Insight bonus. You are the only people who've seen the signs that the invasion is coming, or you're privy to info that it's far closer than expected, or something along those lines. Why would the King being better able to tell that you're being forthright and honest make it LESS likely for the situation to go your way?

I'm not saying "Completely disassociate stats, proficiency, and other details from the DC." I'm saying that for something like persuading a target, there's going to be a million little factors that make having a simple opposed roll be a bad way of simulating it, as compared to a DC set by a competent and friendly DM.

[JoeJ]

Let me put it this way.

The King has a massive Insight bonus. You are the only people who've seen the signs that the invasion is coming, or you're privy to info that it's far closer than expected, or something along those lines. Why would the King being better able to tell that you're being forthright and honest make it LESS likely for the situation to go your way?

Because you're trying to persuade him to do something he already thinks is a bad idea. Due to that massive insight bonus, he can see the real reasons behind your request, even if you yourself may not be consciously aware of them, and how it helps you but not him.

But, as I said a couple of posts ago, it doesn't necessarily have to be Wisdom (Insight). For example, if the king's objection is that what you're asking for has not worked out well in the past, maybe roll Intelligence (History). Maybe even roll that for both the king and the PC. In fact, a Wisdom (Insight) roll by the party might be required to figure out how best to approach the king in the first place.

Keep in mind that all of this presupposes that the king does not want to do what you're asking, and you are trying to overcome whatever reason(s) he has for that unwillingness. If he is not opposed to giving you what you want, you don't need to roll anything at all. It's like walking through a door in a dungeon; if it's aleady open, you don't have to pick the lock.

[Segev]

I mean, if I'm entering into negotiations and then someone casts a magic spell - even one that doesn't explicitly target me - I'd be a bit less eager to continue. If people know there's magic that makes people better at influencing others (eg. glibness, enhance ability) and then you see magic get cast? Nah, I cut off negotiations there. I'm no rube, I ain't a mook, and I ain't getting taken for a ride by your hoighty toighty spellcasters, capiche.

Do you also immediately suspect that the well-spoken individual is somebody you should throw in jail if he so much as says a word to you, and insist that the one who is barely able to put three words together if they have more than 5 syllables between them make all requests? After all, should you not be worried about entering negotiations with somebody who has a higher bonus to Persuasion than +1d4?

[Anymage]

Because you're trying to persuade him to do something he already thinks is a bad idea. Due to that massive insight bonus, he can see the real reasons behind your request, even if you yourself may not be consciously aware of them, and how it helps you but not him.

No ruler thinks that defending their territory is a bad idea.

I look at it more like a grant review board. If they could they'd fully fund every researcher who asks because they do want these studies to happen, but they only have so much money and have to decide where those dollars can be most effective. The king wants to defend his territory because no ruler doesn't, but it's on the PCs to impress him that moving reinforcements to this village is tactically worth pulling those troops from some other village. Charisma and a plan help a lot in that, but the king's ability to read your intentions only matters insofar as he's trying to gauge how much you might be overestimating the situation.

[JoeJ]

No ruler thinks that defending their territory is a bad idea.

No, but this king things that giving resources to you to defend their territory is a bad idea. It's a given, unalterable part of the scenario that the king doesn't initially agree with you; if he did, there would be no persuasion.


I look at it more like a grant review board. If they could they'd fully fund every researcher who asks because they do want these studies to happen, but they only have so much money and have to decide where those dollars can be most effective. The king wants to defend his territory because no ruler doesn't, but it's on the PCs to impress him that moving reinforcements to this village is tactically worth pulling those troops from some other village. Charisma and a plan help a lot in that, but the king's ability to read your intentions only matters insofar as he's trying to gauge how much you might be overestimating the situation.

If it's a question of multiple plans and limited resources, it might be best to treat it as a contest between the PCs and whichever NPC has a different plan, using Charisma (Persuasion) for both. Or possibly Charisma (Deception), if somebody isn't being completely honest.

The point I was making doesn't hinge on which specific test you use. I was just saying that making it a contest adds realism and, relating back to the topic of this thread, helps make sure the DM and the other players are on the same page wrt casting Guidance during a conversation, since both sides might now be doing it. If the players are okay with an NPC casting a spell, it's reasonable for them to expect that NPCs will be okay with them doing it. If they're not okay with it, the DM can point out that the NPC they're interacting with has the same attitude about it that they did.

[Segev]

No, but this king things that giving resources to you to defend their territory is a bad idea. It's a given, unalterable part of the scenario that the king doesn't initially agree with you; if he did, there would be no persuasion.

Again, though, by this logic, he should distrust anybody who shows up in nice clothes, with a prepared presentation, and a good and articulate way of speaking. Anything that would give a bonus to Charisma or Persuasion checks and anything that would give Advantage to such checks should be distrusted. By this logic, the King should trust only those who look as entirely unbelievable and clumsy-tongued as possible, who use unconvincing words and can't make a point to save their lives. Only they could possibly be believed not to have somehow snookered him.

[Damon_Tor]

No ruler thinks that defending their territory is a bad idea.

That's remarkably simplistic. You have to convince him that the threat is real, that it will be worse than what he is currently prepared to handle, that you and your party are the best possible use of the requested resources for the purposes of turning back said threat. You would also have to convince him that the risks of ignoring the threat outweigh the risk of political fallout from those at his court who disagree with giving the party the requested resources.

[GeoffWatson]

Do you also immediately suspect that the well-spoken individual is somebody you should throw in jail if he so much as says a word to you, and insist that the one who is barely able to put three words together if they have more than 5 syllables between them make all requests? After all, should you not be worried about entering negotiations with somebody who has a higher bonus to Persuasion than +1d4?

Why would you trust them to just cast Guidance?
They could easily cast Dominate or Charm or whatever.
Most people can't tell the difference, and the roll to identify casting isn't automatic even for high-level experts.

[Segev]

Why would you trust them to just cast Guidance?
They could easily cast Dominate or Charm or whatever.
Most people can't tell the difference, and the roll to identify casting isn't automatic even for high-level experts.

Maybe you don't. But be clear that what is being distrusted is the casting of any spell at all, not the magical buffing of a speaker. And the more observers know about magic, the less it should concern them. So the more you must rely on the idea they would recognize something is magically happening, the more you must allow that they would not be concerned by what they see.

In general, though, I tend to find it very frustrating when people assume that using abilities designed to make things easier instead makes them harder. Sure, it can be used for other skill checks, but why do you want to encourage more murder-hobo behavior by punishing efforts to be civil?

[Tanarii]

Maybe you don't. But be clear that what is being distrusted is the casting of any spell at all, not the magical buffing of a speaker. And the more observers know about magic, the less it should concern them. So the more you must rely on the idea they would recognize something is magically happening, the more you must allow that they would not be concerned by what they see.
How do they know it was un-perceivable magical buffing instead of a hostile un-perceivable spell?

Touching a creature as a "target" would be a very effective fake-out if someone falls for that kind of thing. But someone less trusting wouldn't necessarily fall for it.

[diplomancer]

No ruler thinks that defending their territory is a bad idea.

Ask Eomer about that, and how it went when he went about defending Theoden's territory without permission. And he was a beloved nephew, Third Marshall of the Mark, not some unknown adventurers

[JoeJ]

Again, though, by this logic, he should distrust anybody who shows up in nice clothes, with a prepared presentation, and a good and articulate way of speaking. Anything that would give a bonus to Charisma or Persuasion checks and anything that would give Advantage to such checks should be distrusted. By this logic, the King should trust only those who look as entirely unbelievable and clumsy-tongued as possible, who use unconvincing words and can't make a point to save their lives. Only they could possibly be believed not to have somehow snookered him.

How did you get to this?

[Porcupinata]

Casting guidance isn't just a 'prayer to a god'. Verbal Components are beyond that.

PHB 203


It's not a normal prayer, it's not a gentle "hey godbro help me out", it's written specifically to say "this isn't something you can cover up as conversation words".

Somatic components, likewise aren't just a minor shrug or whatever, they (same page)



You're not jedi mind tricking with a casual wave of the hand. Forceful gesticulation or intricate set of gestures are very clearly much more than that.

If you wanna give people a free subtle spell, cool, as a DM go nuts, but that's a houserule and the PHB rules are pretty explicit - if you're casting a spell with components, it's obvious that you're doing so. Those in the vicinity don't need to be able to identify what spell it is (though with a DC15 arcana check they've got a likely minimum 25% chance of doing so) but they automatically can identify it as magic unless they're literally living under a rock.

To add to this, the Guidance spell can't be cast as a reaction or even as a bonus action. It takes a full action - that's the greater part of a 6 second round - to cast it. So it's not just (as a previous poster implied) touching someone on the shoulder and spending a quarter of a second muttering two or three words - the sort of thing easily slipped into a conversation. It's at least three seconds of intricate gestures and boldly pronounced arcane utterances.

[Segev]

I'm not suggesting it is subtle. I am suggesting that if you're going to react to magic with hostility, you should be focused on that.

How do you know the perfume the cute adventuress is wearing isn't enchanted to step away your will? Magical potions exist, after all. How do you know the bard's singing in the tavern isn't mind controlling you into wanting to spending the evening in his company? Better make it harder for a talented musician to get a date if he shows off his talent. How do you know the clothing the well-dressed aristocrat is wearing isn't enchanted to make you feel more intimidated? Better make dressing like nobility make it harder to get people to be willing to heed your instructions.

If it is just spellcasting that makes things harder, fine. But be aware that you're simultaneously assuming people know spells when they seehem (even with no visible effect) and also distrust them to the point they assume anything that looks like a spell is hostile and mind control but they know enough to recognize that other things that could be magical are not.

[greenstone]

This is something that should be part of session 0.

GM: In this world, magic is obvious. The gestures and sounds you make are unlike normal conversation - they are unmistakably supernatural. Further, magic is common. Even the most isolated of rural folk know that magic exists are and have seen and heard spells being cast. If they see you casting, they will probably not be able to identify the spell, but they will know you just cast a spell. They will react accordingly.

[Damon_Tor]

A ton of this comes down to worldbuilding.

In a low-magic setting, the king might think nothing of the odd prayer coming from the priest, as he's never seen magic being performed before and might not even believe it exists. In such a setting magic is a huge advantage.

In a mid-magic setting, the king could recognize a spell is being cast, but might respond poorly, having little idea what the spell is doing and generally fearing and distrusting magic users. In this setting magic can be an advantage, but its an advantage others know you have.

In a high-magic setting, the king would be likely to recognize the spell guidance: he's had it cast on him many times and might even have it affecting him right now. He would be aware the spell can make people better at lying, but also that it is frequently used simply to speak more thoughtfully and eloquently, and would take that into account when considering the arguments. In this setting having magic isn't an advantage, it simply puts you on same playing field as everyone else.

[Contrast]

How do you know the perfume the cute adventuress is wearing isn't enchanted to step away your will? Magical potions exist, after all. How do you know the bard's singing in the tavern isn't mind controlling you into wanting to spending the evening in his company? Better make it harder for a talented musician to get a date if he shows off his talent. How do you know the clothing the well-dressed aristocrat is wearing isn't enchanted to make you feel more intimidated? Better make dressing like nobility make it harder to get people to be willing to heed your instructions.

If the car salesman said to me 'Would you like a drink or something to eat? It'll help you feel more relaxed, make you like me and make you feel slightly indebted so it'll be easier for me to pressure you into buying something.' the desired effect would not have been achieved. Pulling back the curtain can and does effect the outcomes.

Casting a spell in front of someones face says to them 'You needed magic to help you do something and apparently the thing you currently want to do is talk to me...'.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm not suggesting it is subtle. I am suggesting that if you're going to react to magic with hostility, you should be focused on that.

How do you know the perfume the cute adventuress is wearing isn't enchanted to step away your will? Magical potions exist, after all. How do you know the bard's singing in the tavern isn't mind controlling you into wanting to spending the evening in his company? Better make it harder for a talented musician to get a date if he shows off his talent. How do you know the clothing the well-dressed aristocrat is wearing isn't enchanted to make you feel more intimidated? Better make dressing like nobility make it harder to get people to be willing to heed your instructions.

If it is just spellcasting that makes things harder, fine. But be aware that you're simultaneously assuming people know spells when they seehem (even with no visible effect) and also distrust them to the point they assume anything that looks like a spell is hostile and mind control but they know enough to recognize that other things that could be magical are not.

Just like you'll have a bad time if you try to bring a weapon to a meeting with the president, you'll have a bad time when you'll try to use magic around the king. It's not like "you aren't allowed to do/wear/carry x around , unless you have specific exception (because you're the president's bodyguard/the court magician/another person of importance for whatever reason)" is a rule unheard of in the real life. In real life, we have metal detectors and personal searches to make sure you're not bringing a gun near the president, in D&D, we have [I]Detect Magic and Arcana checks to make sure you aren't wearing any forbidden magic items or casting spells. That doesn't mean everyone uses those methods, but not everyone is a target. A random person on the street doesn't have to worry much about assassination/mind control attempts, because they are not important enough to be worth the effort. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen from time to time, but the more important you are, the more threat you face.

And, realistically, nobody will cares much if a random peasant gets mind-controlled, outside the peasant himself.

[diplomancer]

To add to this, the Guidance spell can't be cast as a reaction or even as a bonus action. It takes a full action - that's the greater part of a 6 second round - to cast it. So it's not just (as a previous poster implied) touching someone on the shoulder and spending a quarter of a second muttering two or three words - the sort of thing easily slipped into a conversation. It's at least three seconds of intricate gestures and boldly pronounced arcane utterances.

This is something I hear quite often in these discussions, but there's zero rules support to it. Maybe the words and gestures take a couple of seconds but the chanelling of the magical energy takes longer. Maybe it "takes something out" of the caster, so they can't accomplish much else for those six seconds. We just don't know. It's one of many DM calls regarding this issue of noticing a spell being cast, which is why these discussions tend to go on and on. Different people simply come with different, setting-dependent, assumptions to the rules and are usually absolutely certain that the rules mandate their interpretations.

[Unoriginal]

Maybe you don't. But be clear that what is being distrusted is the casting of any spell at all, not the magical buffing of a speaker. And the more observers know about magic, the less it should concern them. So the more you must rely on the idea they would recognize something is magically happening, the more you must allow that they would not be concerned by what they see.

In general, though, I tend to find it very frustrating when people assume that using abilities designed to make things easier instead makes them harder. Sure, it can be used for other skill checks, but why do you want to encourage more murder-hobo behavior by punishing efforts to be civil?

Casting a spell in the middle of a conversation, without warning, is not being civile.



Again: how would your PCs react if you were parleying with Priestesses of Lolth and one of them start casting a spell?

[diplomancer]

Casting a spell in the middle of a conversation, without warning, is not being civile.



Again: how would your PCs react if you were parleying with Priestesses of Lolth and one of them start casting a spell?

The notoriously, infamously, treacherous Drow, even more so those who directly serve and worship the Chaotic Evil Spider Queen? They actually DO have a worse reputation than the average adventuring party, in fact, so the odds of that being an "honest" spell are fairly low. But even THAT assumption can be mitigated by more knowledge about these particular Drow.

How about "you are negotiating with famously good and honorable King Wenceslaus. An advisor steps up and says something to the king, laying his hand on the King's shoulder. You sense the workings of magic" Would the players all go "let's roll for initiative, I want to cast fireball"? Or would they assume that this may very well probably be a slightly beneficial spell, perhaps helping the king's Insight check, either by Guidance or by Enhance Ability (which, if you are negotiating in good faith, should BENEFIT, not hinder, the party)?

Truth is, in a high magic word, casting a spell is no more untrustworthy than someone furiously typing away at a computer. Maybe the person is hacking into the Government's database to launch Nukes. Or maybe they are chatting up a date. The assumption "spell equals evil intentions" or even "spell equals very possibly evil intentions" is a "prejudice" from OUR non-magical (is it, really? ;) ) world.

It's also a staple of the "sword-and-sorcery" genre, which is far closer to TSR-era D&D than to 5e D&D -check the Dragonlance novels, where Arcane magic is accepted but heavily distrusted and Divine magic is considered straight-up witchcraft (of course, nothing stops the DM from having a "sword-and-sorcery" setting, where all these *setting assumptions* are actually true). As someone mentioned recently, this is a Session 0 discussion.

[Amnestic]

I'm not suggesting it is subtle. I am suggesting that if you're going to react to magic with hostility, you should be focused on that.

How do you know the perfume the cute adventuress is wearing isn't enchanted to step away your will? Magical potions exist, after all. How do you know the bard's singing in the tavern isn't mind controlling you into wanting to spending the evening in his company? Better make it harder for a talented musician to get a date if he shows off his talent. How do you know the clothing the well-dressed aristocrat is wearing isn't enchanted to make you feel more intimidated? Better make dressing like nobility make it harder to get people to be willing to heed your instructions.

You don't. But you do know that someone did some mystic chanting with specific tones, pitch and intonations, and intricate gesticulations associated with magic right in front of you right this second. You can suspect all that other stuff, and maybe that's smart to do when adventurers are involved, but the casting of a spell in this conversation isn't a suspicion, it's a guarantee. You know it happened. And apparently these upstart adventurers think so little of Example Monarch here that they think he wouldn't care about such a colossal breach of etiquette.

[diplomancer]

You don't. But you do know that someone did some mystic chanting with specific tones, pitch and intonations, and intricate gesticulations associated with magic right in front of you right this second. You can suspect all that other stuff, and maybe that's smart to do when adventurers are involved, but the casting of a spell in this conversation isn't a suspicion, it's a guarantee. You know it happened. And apparently these upstart adventurers think so little of Example Monarch here that they think he wouldn't care about such a colossal breach of etiquette.

Again, assumption that it IS a breach of etiquette, a colossal one at that. It's an assumption from a low-magic, or a "sword-and-sorcery" setting.

Even in low magic LOTR, Galadriel straight up reads the Fellowship's minds, and the only one who finds anything particularly suspicious about that is the one who didn't trust her at all in the first place.

Gandalf openly casts a spell in the presence of the King, and the only one who gets upset is the one who had been *subtly* casting spells at the King.

[Unoriginal]

The notoriously, infamously, treacherous Drow, even more so those who directly serve and worship the Chaotic Evil Spider Queen? They actually DO have a worse reputation than the average adventuring party, in fact, so the odds of that being an "honest" spell are fairly low. But even THAT assumption can be mitigated by more knowledge about these particular Drow.

How about "you are negotiating with famously good and honorable King Wenceslaus. An advisor steps up and says something to the king, laying his hand on the King's shoulder. You sense the workings of magic" Would the players all go "let's roll for initiative, I want to cast fireball"? Or would they assume that this may very well probably be a slightly beneficial spell, perhaps helping the king's Insight check, either by Guidance or by Enhance Ability (which, if you are negotiating in good faith, should BENEFIT, not hinder, the party)?

Truth is, in a high magic word, casting a spell is no more untrustworthy than someone furiously typing away at a computer. Maybe the person is hacking into the Government's database to launch Nukes. Or maybe they are chatting up a date. The assumption "spell equals evil intentions" or even "spell equals very possibly evil intentions" is a "prejudice" from OUR non-magical (is it, really? ;) ) world.

It's also a staple of the "sword-and-sorcery" genre, which is far closer to TSR-era D&D than to 5e D&D (of course, nothing stops the DM from having a "sword-and-sorcery" setting, where all these *setting assumptions* are actually true). As someone mentioned recently, this is a Session 0 discussion.

It's not about magic being inherently untrustworthy, it's about what you can do. If you could kill people or brainwash them just by playing for a couple seconds with your computer, people wouldn't let you do that Willy-nilly unless you've demonstrated they can trust you with that power.

You said so yourself: you wouldn't trust in famous backstabbed to start casting a spell, but you would trust a King in their place of power, when you're trying to get said King's help.

Now, what about if some random person approach you , say they want to talk, and once you've done the introductions they start casting a spell?

Or how about if the PCs enter a party, two custommers look at them, nod to each other and then one starts to cast a spell?

[diplomancer]

It's not about magic being inherently untrustworthy, it's about what you can do. If you could kill people or brainwash them just by playing for a couple seconds with your computer, people wouldn't let you do that Willy-nilly unless you've demonstrated they can trust you with that power.

You said so yourself: you wouldn't trust in famous backstabbed to start casting a spell, but you would trust a King in their place of power, when you're trying to get said King's help.

Now, what about if some random person approach you , say they want to talk, and once you've done the introductions they start casting a spell?

It's fairly rare for a low-level party to be talking with a King, specially from their own initiative. By the time it usually happens in a campaign, they have probably established SOME reputation. Of course, like Gandalf, this reputation can be also slightly bad "there's always trouble whenever they show up", but if it's a mostly good-aligned, heroic party, the King can actually trust them to NOT be using spells "offensively" or with evil intentions.

I.e, the PCs are not, in fact, "a random person on the street" after about levels 4-5. They are a mostly known quantity.

[Unoriginal]

It's fairly rare for a low-level party to be talking with a King, specially from their own initiative. By the time it usually happens in a campaign, they have probably established SOME reputation. Of course, like Gandalf, this reputation can be also slightly bad "there's always trouble whenever they show up", but if it's a mostly good-aligned, heroic party, the King can actually trust them to NOT be using spells "offensively" or with evil intentions.

I.e, the PCs are not, in fact, "a random person on the street" after about levels 4-5. They are a mostly known quantity.

You have not answered the questions. It's not to establish equivalency between PCs and the King, it's to determine what is the threshold of trust one need to accept people casting in the middle of an interaction (or at the beginning).

So, again, do your PCs just accept people they've seen for the first time moments ago cast a spell without warning?

[Amnestic]

Even in low magic LOTR, Galadriel straight up reads the Fellowship's minds, and the only one who finds anything particularly suspicious about that is the one who didn't trust her at all in the first place.

Galadriel's the monarch in this scenario so that kinda vibes with what I was saying already? She's in charge here, they were in her domain. They'd already been jumped by her elves.



Gandalf openly casts a spell in the presence of the King, and the only one who gets upset is the one who had been *subtly* casting spells at the King.

Are we talking about Theoden+Grima here? Because the Ara/Leg/Gim trio were fighting off guards to let Gandalf get close to cast his spell. The guards were actively trying to stop it from happening. They didn't know what Gandalf was doing but they weren't okay with it.

I actively disagree with the premise that it would only be an issue in low magic campaigns. Low magic they might be suspicious because they don't know anything about magic aside from legends and tall tales. High magic they'll be suspicious because they do know what it can do and how it works.

[Glorthindel]

This is the reason for the martial/spellcaster disparity; everyone assumes its due to the martial not being powerful enough, but it isn't, it is due to people constantly peeling back at the checks and balances that are placed on spellcasters. Every edition sees checks on spellcaster power getting scrubbed out the game (don't need to find spells, don't need material components, don't need to test to learn spells, no longer need to pre-assign spells to slots), while at the same time, players still chip away at the few checks to their power that do exist, and cry foul at even the slightest attempt to keep it restrained.

The spell has a verbal and somatic component. No, you cannot hide these in a simple prayer and subtle hand movement; there is a very specific ability that allows that, and if you don't have it, you can't do it, end of. And no, nobody in their right mind is going to go "oh, that guy just cast a spell in front of my face, with no explanation... ah, it'll be fine", I mean, come on, be honest with yourselves, you wouldn't let it pass as a player if an NPC with uncertain motives cast a spell in your characters faces, so expecting an NPC to do so when you try it is ridiculous.

[SharkForce]

as an added note, I feel that it is worth pointing out that whatever exactly somatic components are, they are complex enough that if you're not familiar with armour you simply cannot perform them at all while wearing it; things like hardened leather or chainmail are sufficient to make it 100% impossible to cast a spell.


so while somatic components may involve wiggling your fingers or clapping your hand on someone's shoulder, I find it highly implausible that there isn't much more to it than that.

(also, seriously, there's a difference between you going into a place where someone else is in control and trying to use magic, and that other person using magic).

personally, I would expect attempts to cast a spell in the presence of a person with a lot of power (in general: anyone wealthy or powerful enough to have armed guards around) is likely to generate a negative response, unless you are trusted by them and/or specifically get their permission... which they are unlikely to have much reason to allow you to do for a guidance cantrip that will help you convince them to do something. there is little benefit to be had, and some risk. why should they allow it?

now, I agree the PCs would know that what they're doing is not going to be appreciated, and as a DM I would warn them of that in advance. and frankly, I don't see this as particularly taking much from the PCs; there are plenty of other situations where guidance will be perfectly usable. the cantrip is scarcely in danger of becoming worthless without being allowed in social situations. it is, in fact, widely considered to be one of the strongest cantrips in the game.

(I will also add that most other NPCs won't react particularly well to you coming into what they consider to be their territory - their town, their house, their business, whatever - and casting spells there... but may not feel that they can do anything about it. still, I wouldn't recommend just randomly casting spells in a public place while surrounded by a bunch of NPCs unless you have some status there. unless of course you don't mind people thinking you're a suspicious person)

[Waazraath]

This:



I actively disagree with the premise that it would only be an issue in low magic campaigns. Low magic they might be suspicious because they don't know anything about magic aside from legends and tall tales. High magic they'll be suspicious because they do know what it can do and how it works.

And also a big fat +1 for this:


This is the reason for the martial/spellcaster disparity; everyone assumes its due to the martial not being powerful enough, but it isn't, it is due to people constantly peeling back at the checks and balances that are placed on spellcasters. Every edition sees checks on spellcaster power getting scrubbed out the game (don't need to find spells, don't need material components, don't need to test to learn spells, no longer need to pre-assign spells to slots), while at the same time, players still chip away at the few checks to their power that do exist, and cry foul at even the slightest attempt to keep it restrained.

The spell has a verbal and somatic component. No, you cannot hide these in a simple prayer and subtle hand movement; there is a very specific ability that allows that, and if you don't have it, you can't do it, end of. And no, nobody in their right mind is going to go "oh, that guy just cast a spell in front of my face, with no explanation... ah, it'll be fine", I mean, come on, be honest with yourselves, you wouldn't let it pass as a player if an NPC with uncertain motives cast a spell in your characters faces, so expecting an NPC to do so when you try it is ridiculous.

I'ts only a a part of the complete picture of martial/spellcaster disparity (that's also about 5 min. adventuring days, about encounter design, and much much more, some of it legit choices you can make in campaign design that make spellcasters stronger or weaker compared to the rest), but this is a definitely part of the mindset behind percieved disbalance: real (RAW) limits to spells are ignored, while non-spell abilities are arbitrariliy nerfed into uselesness, leading to people arguing you can instakill enemies with a cantrip (but also that a lvl 20 rogue can't steal a trinket from the enemy during a fight).

[diplomancer]

Galadriel's the monarch in this scenario so that kinda vibes with what I was saying already? She's in charge here, they were in her domain. They'd already been jumped by her elves.



Are we talking about Theoden+Grima here? Because the Ara/Leg/Gim trio were fighting off guards to let Gandalf get close to cast his spell. The guards were actively trying to stop it from happening. They didn't know what Gandalf was doing but they weren't okay with it.

Only in the movie, where the whole scene is horribly mangled (it's basically THE point where The Two Towers start going from "oh my god, this is wonderful" to "what the heck are they doing to the story"). In the books, no such thing happens, and Gandalf is let in with his staff because Hama, the King's doorward, explicitly says something like "I believe you are trustworthy folk, with the best interest of Rohan at heart". THAT, the party's reputation, more than anything else, will determine how spellcasting is seen in such situations.


as an added note, I feel that it is worth pointing out that whatever exactly somatic components are, they are complex enough that if you're not familiar with armour you simply cannot perform them at all while wearing it; things like hardened leather or chainmail are sufficient to make it 100% impossible to cast a spell.


so while somatic components may involve wiggling your fingers or clapping your hand on someone's shoulder, I find it highly implausible that there isn't much more to it than that.


Armor proficiency and Spellcasting has NOTHING to do with somatic components; in a way, it's a pure (but necessary) gamist construct. You can't cast spells, period, in armor, even those with only a Vocal component. How does putting on some leather armos stop you from casting a Verbal-only spell? I have no idea, it's magic, but whatever it is, it's not "your movements are constrained and you can't make the intricate gestures necessary to cast this spell".

[Unoriginal]

This is the reason for the martial/spellcaster disparity; everyone assumes its due to the martial not being powerful enough, but it isn't, it is due to people constantly peeling back at the checks and balances that are placed on spellcasters. Every edition sees checks on spellcaster power getting scrubbed out the game (don't need to find spells, don't need material components, don't need to test to learn spells, no longer need to pre-assign spells to slots), while at the same time, players still chip away at the few checks to their power that do exist, and cry foul at even the slightest attempt to keep it restrained.

The spell has a verbal and somatic component. No, you cannot hide these in a simple prayer and subtle hand movement; there is a very specific ability that allows that, and if you don't have it, you can't do it, end of. And no, nobody in their right mind is going to go "oh, that guy just cast a spell in front of my face, with no explanation... ah, it'll be fine", I mean, come on, be honest with yourselves, you wouldn't let it pass as a player if an NPC with uncertain motives cast a spell in your characters faces, so expecting an NPC to do so when you try it is ridiculous.



I'ts only a a part of the complete picture of martial/spellcaster disparity (that's also about 5 min. adventuring days, about encounter design, and much much more, some of it legit choices you can make in campaign design that make spellcasters stronger or weaker compared to the rest), but this is a definitely part of the mindset behind percieved disbalance: real (RAW) limits to spells are ignored, while non-spell abilities are arbitrariliy nerfed into uselesness, leading to people arguing you can instakill enemies with a cantrip (but also that a lvl 20 rogue can't steal a trinket from the enemy during a fight).

Amen to that.


Only in the movie, where the whole scene is horribly mangled (it's basically THE point where The Two Towers start going from "oh my god, this is wonderful" to "what the heck are they doing to the story"). In the books, no such thing happens, and Gandalf is let in with his staff because Hama, the King's doorward, explicitly says something like "I believe you are trustworthy folk, with the best interest of Rohan at heart". THAT, the party's reputation, more than anything else, will determine how spellcasting is seen in such situations.

And Hama still got fired from this job by Theoden once he is healed, because regardless of his reasons and how it helped the king, he still failed his duties.

[Valmark]

Armor proficiency and Spellcasting has NOTHING to do with somatic components; in a way, it's a pure (but necessary) gamist construct. You can't cast spells, period, in armor, even those with only a Vocal component. How does putting on some leather armos stop you from casting a Verbal-only spell? I have no idea, it's magic, but whatever it is, it's not "your movements are constrained and you can't make the intricate gestures necessary to cast this spell".

It's actually almost exactly that.
"Casting in Armor
Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting."

[diplomancer]

It's actually almost exactly that.
"Casting in Armor
Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting."

In that case, I suppose you allow the casting of spells without somatic components while wearing armor the caster is not proficient with (or, what would have even more game-breaking implications, allow Sorcerers to cast Subtle spells while wearing armor they are not proficient with).


Amen to that.



And Hama still got fired from this job by Theoden once he is healed, because regardless of his reasons and how it helped the king, he still failed his duties.

I think you are getting him mixed up with Beregond. Beregond loses his job as a Man of the Tower (to get a better job, but still...), I don't exactly recall Hama losing his post, though Theoden does tease him about it (and if I DO recall correctly, that's the extent of his punishment, some light teasing from his King- the VERY NEXT day, when he dies, he's personally honored by the King when he dies. It was clearly not a horrible failure of duty).

[Amnestic]

In that case, I suppose you allow the casting of spells without somatic components while wearing armor the caster is not proficient with (or, what would have even more game-breaking implications, allow Sorcerers to cast Subtle spells while wearing armor they are not proficient with).

I don't know how you'd take that interpretation away from what's been said, since the quoted excerpt specifically mentions the "mental focus" and "being distracted" as issues as well.

You can't do the somatic components in them because the armour is hampering your body.
You can't do the verbal components in them because the armour is hampering your mind - which, likewise, is why subtle spell wouldn't work either.

[diplomancer]

I don't know how you'd take that interpretation away from what's been said, since the quoted excerpt specifically mentions the "mental focus" and "being distracted" as issues as well.

You can't do the somatic components in them because the armour is hampering your body.
You can't do the verbal components in them because the armour is hampering your mind - which, likewise, is why subtle spell wouldn't work either.

Let's review how this argument started. It was said that the fact that you can't cast spells in armour you are not proficient with is evidence that "it can't just be a somewhat simple gesture". For myself, I cannot figure out how wearing leather armor, or even a breastplate, impedes doing one of the few somatic components that is actually in a spell's description, i.e, burning hands; a very simple gesture, not at all intricate or more complicated than many different gestures used by ordinary people in different circumstances; being distracted by the armour making you lose the necessary focus, yeah, I can see that, but being unable to spread your fingers in a fan-out pattern? Come on).

[Amnestic]

Let's review how this argument started. It was said that the fact that you can't cast spells in armour you are not proficient with is evidence that "it can't just be a somewhat simple gesture". For myself, I cannot figure out how wearing leather armor, or even a breastplate, impedes doing one of the few somatic components that is actually in a spell's description, i.e, burning hands; a very simple gesture, not at all intricate or more complicated than many different gestures used by ordinary people in different circumstances; being distracted by the armour making you lose the necessary focus, yeah, I can see that, but being unable to spread your fingers in a fan-out pattern? Come on).

Burning hands is more than just "spreading your fingers in a fan-out pattern". It has S components. Referring back to PHB203 which I quoted two pages ago:



Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

Spreading your fingers is the final part of the spell, but there's more to it than just that. And that "more to it" is what the poorly worn armour is interfering with.

[Unoriginal]

I think you are getting him mixed up with Beregond. Beregond loses his job as a Man of the Tower (to get a better job, but still...), I don't exactly recall Hama losing his post, though Theoden does tease him about it (and if I DO recall correctly, that's the extent of his punishment, some light teasing from his King- the VERY NEXT day, when he dies, he's personally honored by the King when he dies. It was clearly not a horrible failure of duty).

I'm fairly certain Hama loses his job, although he is made royal messenger immediately afterward. Not a huge punishment, but still symbolic.

[diplomancer]

Burning hands is more than just "spreading your fingers in a fan-out pattern". It has S components. Referring back to PHB203 which I quoted two pages ago:



Spreading your fingers is the final part of the spell, but there's more to it than just that. And that "more to it" is what the poorly worn armour is interfering with.

"a forceful gesticulation OR an intricate set of gestures". Spreading your fingers toward someone is "a forceful gesticulation". So, arguably, is stretching out your arm and laying it on someone's shoulders, giving someone a thumbs up or a high five, the "Italian hand", and many other examples that I could cite from the real world but forum rules on talking about real world religions stop me from mentioning.

As to "intricate set of gestures", do you mean like playing an instrument? :smallwink:


I'm fairly certain Hama loses his job, although he is made royal messenger immediately afterward. Not a huge punishment, but still symbolic.

Theoden does say
'That may be. I will do as you ask. Call Háma to me. Since he proved untrusty as a doorward, let him become an errand-runner. The guilty shall bring the guilty to judgement,' said Théoden, and his voice was grim, yet he looked at Gandalf and smiled and as he did so many lines of care were smoothed away and did not return.

but I always saw that more of a joke and a tease; Hama is as "guilty" as is Eomer, and Theoden is beginning to realize that; specially considering that the king leaves his palace almost immediately, and since Hama keeps having considerable importance, both suggesting Eowin as leader of the civilians and being buried personally by the King and mentioned as one of the many crimes of Saruman by both Eomer and Theoden, I think it's something of a stretch to say that he had "lost his job". As he does not survive to go back to Edoras, we can only speculate about what would have been his functions had he come back. I'd say it's very unlikely that it would be something with LESS responsibility than he had before, so his GOOD judgement would most likely be rewarded, not punished, by the King, even though he technically broke the command of Wormtongue-speaking-through-Theoden's-mout.

[Unoriginal]

"a forceful gesticulation OR an intricate set of gestures". Spreading your fingers toward someone is "a forceful gesticulation". So, arguably, is stretching out your arm and laying it on someone's shoulders, giving someone a thumbs up or a high five, the "Italian hand", and many other examples that I could cite from the real world but forum rules on talking about real world religions stop me from mentioning.

As to "intricate set of gestures", do you mean like playing an instrument? :smallwink:

Look, let's call things by their names: do you think that verbal and somatic components can be innocuous or not perceived as being components of a spell?

If yes, why would any Sorcerer bother with Subtle Spell, aside from being able to cast while bound and gagged?

[Amnestic]

"a forceful gesticulation OR an intricate set of gestures". Spreading your fingers toward someone is "a forceful gesticulation". So, arguably, is stretching out your arm and laying it on someone's shoulders, giving someone a thumbs up or a high five, the "Italian hand", and many other examples that I could cite from the real world but forum rules on talking about real world religions stop me from mentioning.

And all of those are interfered with by wearing armour you're not proficient with in such a way that you can't cast the spell. They don't need to stop the gesture entirely, just mess with its performance enough that it doesn't let the spell work.

I don't think instrument performance is explicitly tied to an ability score - could be wrong - but I don't think it'd be unreasonable to say that playing one is a Dexterity or Strength (Instrument) check and thus subject to disadvantage while wearing non-proficient armour.

[MoiMagnus]

Look, let's call things by their names: do you think that verbal and somatic components can be innocuous or not perceived as being components of a spell?

If yes, why would any Sorcerer bother with Subtle Spell, aside from being able to cast while bound and gagged?

I can understand a ruling where a successful skill check allows to make spell-casting unnoticed assuming a favourable context (opposed by passive perception if you try to make your spell component unseen, or by passive insight if you try to make your spell component seems innocuous). Though if the DM is that generous with skills for spellcasters, I'd strongly expect for them to be at least as generous with skills for martial characters.

With this interpretation, Subtle Spell offers unconditional and automatic success to concealing the spellcasting, which is less useful but still relevant.

[Unoriginal]

I don't think instrument performance is explicitly tied to an ability score - could be wrong -

Charisma is the ability check for instrument performance. If you have both proficiency in the Performance skill and in the instrument you're playing, you get advantage.



but I don't think it'd be unreasonable to say that playing one is a Dexterity or Strength (Instrument) check and thus subject to disadvantage while wearing non-proficient armour.

It's possible for a DEX or STR check to benefit from a musical instrument proficiency, strictly speaking, but generally not to play music.

I could see a STR check + instrument proficiency if you're trying to be as loud as possible hitting something, for example.

[diplomancer]

Look, let's call things by their names: do you think that verbal and somatic components can be innocuous or not perceived as being components of a spell?

If yes, why would any Sorcerer bother with Subtle Spell, aside from being able to cast while bound and gagged?

Yes I do. I see absolutely nothing wrong with a Bard casting a spell by playing a song, both the class fantasy and the PHB description of Bards strongly support that, and that is pretty much the ONLY good reason for a Bard to have an instrument as his focus instead of carrying a component pouch. I also see nothing wrong with a Cleric doing a chant, burning some incense and making some religious signs, as ways of casting spells, being entirely undistinguishable from what is done during many religious functions. You want to know more about what's going on? Invest in Arcana.

And yes, being able to cast spells while bound and gagged, or being able to cast a spell in the middle of combat without having it counterspelled, or having the spell *just happen* with 100% chance of it not being perceived by others with no need for any distractions or subterfuge, are all very good uses of Subtle Spell, which I really wish had a different name as it would stop all these arguments, even if the text of the ability remained exactly the same.

Does that make subtle spell useless? Not at all; it's still quite a good ability for the reasons I just mentioned; but the *existence* of this ability does not *take away* from other spellcasters ways of casting spells while not being noticed.

[Amnestic]

Charisma is the ability check for instrument performance.

I'm not necessarily doubting this, but is that called out somewhere? From what I can see it's not specified either in the general Tool section of the PHB or the instruments section.


A tool helps you to do something you couldn't otherwise do, such as craft or repair an item, forge a document, or pick a lock. Your race, class, background, or feats give you proficiency with certain tools. Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool. Tool use is not tied to a single ability, since proficiency with a tool represents broader knowledge of its use. For example, the DM might ask you to make a Dexterity check to carve a fine detail with your w oodcarver’s tools, or a Strength check to make something out of particularly hard wood.


Musical Instrument. Several of the most common types of musical instruments are shown on the table as examples. If you have proficiency with a given musical instrument, you can add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to play music with the instrument. A bard can use a musical instrument as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. Each type of musical instrument requires a separate proficiency.
-PHB154

[Unoriginal]

I'm not necessarily doubting this, but is that called out somewhere? From what I can see it's not specified either in the general Tool section of the PHB or the instruments section.




-PHB154

I think it's in the Xanathar's.

[Tanarii]

Yes I do. I see absolutely nothing wrong with a Bard casting a spell by playing a song, both the class fantasy and the PHB description of Bards strongly support that, and that is pretty much the ONLY good reason for a Bard to have an instrument as his focus instead of carrying a component pouch. I also see nothing wrong with a Cleric doing a chant, burning some incense and making some religious signs, as ways of casting spells, being entirely undistinguishable from what is done during many religious functions. You want to know more about what's going on? Invest in Arcana.
Thats fine, but if they can be disguised as a normal song or a normal chant and religious signs, you've got a house rule. Not a ruling.

Also note that Bards just need a free hand to access and hold their instrument during casting. They don't need to play it.

[Amnestic]

I think it's in the Xanathar's.

Not in the tool section at least, couldn't find anything in the downtime area either (or the downtime area of the DMG which I checked as well).

[diplomancer]

Thats fine, but if they can be disguised as a normal song or a normal chant and religious signs, you've got a house rule. Not a ruling.

Also note that Bards just need a free hand to access and hold their instrument during casting. They don't need to play it.

No, it's a ruling; as it is a ruling that they CAN'T be disguised as a normal song or a normal chant and religious signs. It's up to the DM. Just to stay in the "mystic words" thing, which I believe is the strongest argument; can someone untrained in Arcana actually tell the difference between "mystic words" and "words in a language they don't understand". Maybe, in your setting, yes. But it's not a given, and I see no reason WHY someone untrained in Arcana would be able to tell the difference (unless in the very unlikely case that the person knows ALL languages EXCEPT the one used for "mystic words").

As to the Instrument as Focus; ok. But is there ANY advantage to using them as a focus instead of a component pouch? Do you believe it is ENTIRELY for flavor reasons that they have that, and that the intent is that they CAN'T weave spells into their performances without it being obvious to any untrained looker what it is they are doing? And if yes, would you care to point out the RAW that makes this the only possible interpretation, and anything else is a houserule?

But we are getting off-topic, which is more "what are the possible reactions to something that is a very obvious casting of a spell" and not "when is a spell being cast something very obvious", though there is some correlation between them. Yes, I do believe that many times, the spells are not obvious. Separately from that, I DON'T think people would react with immediate hostility to a party of famously good heroes casting a spell in the king's presence. Heck, if they suspect that the party is being less than honest and the spell is being cast to deceive the king, they can always request that the party submit to a Zone of Truth (in a high magic world, I'd imagine that being under a Zone of Truth would be standard procedure for petitioners in any court of a mighty king)

[Tanarii]

No, it's a ruling; as it is a ruling that they CAN'T be disguised as a normal song or a normal chant and religious signs. It's up to the DM.
Components being perceivable and identifiable as casting isn't a ruling. It's the written rule.

[diplomancer]

Components being perceivable and identifiable as casting isn't a ruling. It's the written rule.

First of all, at best, it's an optional Xanathar rule. If you are playing "core-books only", there is simply no rule at all about it. Even then, the rule only states when the spell is perceptible, not if it's actually perceived and recognized as a spell. The Xanathar rules, in fact, only say when a spell is imperceptible, they do not say anything about HOW a spell IS, in fact, perceived. A secret door is perceptible, that does not mean that you will perceive it even if you are staring right at it. How do we know if someone actually perceives a spell? Ask your DM, the rules are silent on that.

[Unoriginal]

"People will generally be fine with the PCs casting spells without warning if they perceive it" is a different argument than "people generally won't perceive that the PCs are casting spells", and so far IMO no one has presented anything convincing in favor for the former.


First of all, at best, it's an optional Xanathar rule. If you are playing "core-books only", there is simply no rule at all about it.

I'm curious what you think is the reason for verbal and somatic components' existence, if they're not indicators of a spell being cast.

[diplomancer]

"People will be fine with the PCs casting spells without warning if they perceive it" is a different argument than "people won't perceive the PCs are casting spells", and so far IMO no one has presented anything convincing in favor for the former.

Agreed on they being different arguments. And my argument in favour of "people will, sometimes, be fine with the PCs casting spells without warning if they perceive it, and NOT necessarily immediately assume that the PCs are up to no good" is the Gandalf-Theoden scene. Even a spell cast directly at the king can be well received if the people present judge that it was actually done for the King's benefit. A minor cantrip used by a party of good reputation to bolster their arguments is nothing compared to that.


"People will generally be fine with the PCs casting spells without warning if they perceive it" is a different argument than "people generally won't perceive that the PCs are casting spells", and so far IMO no one has presented anything convincing in favor for the former.



I'm curious what you think is the reason for verbal and somatic components' existence, if they're not indicators of a spell being cast.

They are ways of neutralizing casters (in fact, I think that, as the game evolved, they were actually ways of avoiding the common ways of neutralizing casters, like still being able to cast some spells even in a zone of Silence. In BECMI D&D, where there were no spell components, there was simply no way of casting any spells in a zone of Silence.). In certain situations, they are also those indicators that you mention so they also have this function, but there are many ways to "disguise" them (like playing a song, or doing some religious chants). Notice how those "disguises" do nothing against the "hard control" of a zone of Silence, so acting as "indicators of casting" is actually a secondary function.

[Zhorn]

I'm not necessarily doubting this, but is that called out somewhere? From what I can see it's not specified either in the general Tool section of the PHB or the instruments section.
It's in the Using Each Ability section

Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment.
Music of course as the all encompassing singing and/or playing of an instrument, though for some that may not be explicit enough.
Same section I was having to look up the other day for pointing out Lock Picking and Disabling Traps actually is tied to Dex by RAW.

[Unoriginal]

Agreed. And my argument is the Gandalf-Theoden scene. Even a spell cast directly at the king can be well received if the people present realize that it was actually done for the King's benefit.

In the book, there is no "Gandalf shines and cast an obvious spell", nor is Theoden physically rejuvenated. Gandalf just talks with a king in intense despair and helps him out of it.

But it's true that yes, it *can* be well received *if* the people realizes what is happening and agree with it.


That doesn't mean that it *will* be received well, especially when there is a delay between perceiving the casting and perceiving the effect, or if the people have no reason to trust the one casting to not harm them.

In D&D 5e, any casting is potentially harmful to those around. In typical D&D settings, most people know enough about magic to know that fact, even if they don't know the details. So it's logical to have people be at least wary of a caster they don't know starting to cast. Having the mysterious stranger in the corner of the inn start breakdancing and speaking in tongue won't have the same impact as Zangrief, who's been a local mage for 34 years, doing the same.

If PCs see three people look at them in the street, and one of them start casting a spell, don't you think that the PCs will at least consider this may be an attack and tell them to stop?

In the same way, context changes thing. A PC with the Criminal Background could secure an audience with the local mob boss, but it doesn't mean the mob boss will react positively to the party's Cleric start casting a spell. On the other hand, someone with the Folk Hero Background casting a spell in public will probably have the people who recognize them give them the benefit of the doubt.

Furthermore, shapeshifters and disguises exist, too. If a king receive a group of well-known adventurers for an audience, and one of them start casting a spell without warning, should the king just trust them and not consider the possibility this may be an attack, then react accordingly?

A king's life is a precious thing to bet on "I'm sure this is an harmless spell and not an assassination attempt."

[diplomancer]

In the book, there is no "Gandalf shines and cast an obvious spell", nor is Theoden physically rejuvenated. Gandalf just talks with a king in intense despair and helps him out of it.

But it's true that yes, it *can* be well received *if* the people realizes what is happening and agree with it.


That doesn't mean that it *will* be received well, especially when there is a delay between perceiving the casting and perceiving the effect, or if the people have no reason to trust the one casting to not harm them.

In D&D 5e, any casting is potentially harmful to those around. In typical D&D settings, most people know enough about magic to know that fact, even if they don't know the details. So it's logical to have people be wary of a caster they don't know starting to cast.

If PCs see three people look at them in the street, and one of them start casting a spell, don't you think that the PCs will at least consider this may be an attack and tell them to stop?

Furthermore, shapeshifters and disguises exist, too. If a king receive a group of well-known adventurers for an audience, and one of them start casting a spell without warning, should the king just trust them and not consider the possibility this may be an attack, then react accordingly?

A king's life is a precious thing to bet on "I'm sure this is an harmless spell and not an assassination attempt."


He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded
to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth. In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue's voice: 'Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff? That fool, Háma, has betrayed us!' There was a flash as if lightning had cloven the roof. Then all was silent. Wormtongue sprawled on his face.

It was VERY obvious that Gandalf was working magic. In D&D terms, mostly Thaumaturgy and Prestidigitation, but then again Lord of the Rings IS mostly low magic.

My main point, which I am trying to get across and mostly failing, so I do apologize for that, is that a lot of the reaction will depend on the reputation of the party. That's why your questions of "how will the party react if strangers start casting spells at them" are not a perfect "reversion" of the situation under consideration. That the PCs are in front of the king at all already makes it somewhat unlikely that they are entirely "strangers", and it is quite possible that their reputation as honorable people precedes them (again, see Hama and how he judges letting Gandalf in with his staff).

How about this: The party enters an inn, run by a House Gallanda (Mark of Hospitality) Halfling. They see the innkeeper tasting their food, making a somewhat displeased face, and then he casts a spell. Then he tastes it again, smiles contentedly, and brings it to the party. Would the PCs eat the food? I know mine would, even if he'd never seen that Halfling before and didn't know him from Adam.

Notice that it is quite possible, in this scene, that he has cast Charm Person on one of the PCs, just doing a bit of theatrics to put the party at ease. But it would take a high level of paranoia from the players to go all "I want to roll for initiative" when they see this cameo.

[Unoriginal]

It was VERY obvious that Gandalf was working magic. In D&D terms, mostly Thaumaturgy and Prestidigitation, but then again Lord of the Rings IS mostly low magic.

I admit I had forgotten about that part . Still, that was Gandalf intimidating everyone and getting Wormtongue out of the way. It's true it was an obvious display of power, but the whole purpose was to establish "do not mess with me". And keep in mind that in Tolkien's world, power grants authority.

The actual "using magic on the king" goes:


'Now Theoden son of Thengel, will you hearken to me?' said Gandalf. 'Do you ask for help?' He lifted his staff and pointed to a high window. There the darkness seemed to clear, and through the opening could be seen, high and far, a patch of shining sky. 'Not all is dark. Take courage, Lord of the Mark; for better help you will not find. No counsel have I to give to those that despair. Yet counsel I could give, and words I could speak to you. Will you hear them? They are not for all ears. I bid you come out before your doors and look abroad. Too long have you sat in shadows and trusted to twisted tales and crooked promptings.'

Slowly Theoden left his chair. A faint light grew in the hall again. The woman hastened to the king's side, taking his arm, and with faltering steps the old man came down from the dais and paced softly through the hall. Wormtongue remained lying on the floor. They came to the doors and Gandalf knocked.

'Open!' he cried. 'The Lord of the Mark comes forth!'

The doors rolled back and a keen air came whistling in. A wind was blowing on the hill.
'Send your guards down to the stairs' foot,' said Gandalf. 'And you, lady, leave him a while with me. I will care for him.'
'Go, Eowyn sister-daughter!' said the old king. 'The time for fear is past.'

Essentially, I don't see PCs pulling off that kind of stunt without Charisma checks and/or being in a position of power.

[diplomancer]

That was Gandalf intimidating everyone into letting it happen and getting Wormtongue out of the way. It's true it was an obvious display of power, but the whole purpose was to establish "do not mess with me". And keep in mind that in Tolkien's world, power grants authority.

The actual "using magic on the king" goes:



Essentially, I don't see PCs pulling off that kind of stunt without Charisma checks and/or being in a position of power.

Hey, Charisma checks to see how people react to spells being cast are fine! My problem begins when you say "it will always and automatically be considered hostile"

[Unoriginal]

My main point, which I am trying to get across and mostly failing, so I do apologize for that, is that a lot of the reaction will depend on the reputation of the party. That's why your questions of "how will the party react if strangers start casting spells at them" are not a perfect "reversion" of the situation under consideration. That the PCs are in front of the king at all already makes it somewhat unlikely that they are entirely "strangers", and it is quite possible that their reputation as honorable people precedes them (again, see Hama and how he judges letting Gandalf in with his staff).

How about this: The party enters an inn, run by a House Gallanda (Mark of Hospitality) Halfling. They see the innkeeper tasting their food, making a somewhat displeased face, and then he casts a spell. Then he tastes it again, smiles contentedly, and brings it to the party. Would the PCs eat the food? I know mine would, even if he'd never seen that Halfling before and didn't know him from Adam.

Notice that it is quite possible, in this scene, that he has cast Charm Person on one of the PCs, just doing a bit of theatrics to put the party at ease. But it would take a high level of paranoia from the players to go all "I want to roll for initiative" when they see this cameo.

I 100% agree that it's a question of reputation (among other things), and my question isn't intended as a reversion, but as an exploration of different situations.

I admit that yes, PCs are likely to trust that someone who seems to be a cook using magic on a meal in front of everyone is not doing something nefarious. They may check the food for tempering, though, depending on the PCs.

Now let's extrapolate on the situation a bit: PCs enter the inn, sit at their table, and then hear someone openly casting a spell while they're not looking at the cook. Do you think they would just ignore it, or turn around to check if this is something they should be worried about?

[Tanarii]

First of all, at best, it's an optional Xanathar rule. If you are playing "core-books only", there is simply no rule at all about it.

That is not correct. PHB page 203 specifies the requirements of components.

[cookieface]

That is not correct. PHB page 203 specifies the requirements of components.

This is only half true.

Diplomancer was discussing how spells being inherently "perceptible" was not added until XGE. In the PHB, it just states that words and gestures are needed. By PHB's RAW, you could easily make the ruling that the words could be said under one's breath and the gestures could be subtle enough so as to not be immediately obvious to everyone around.

And either way, something like Bard spells are perceptible, yes, but not even in XGE does it say that spells being cast are known to be spells. Just that the verbal and somatic components are perceptible, so a Bard casting Calm Emotions could literally take the form of her singing and dancing in order to calm the room. (It makes a tenuous connection to someone being able "to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence", but that is as a rhetorical question without giving a hard-and-fast answer. It simply answers that the verbal, somatic, and material components are perceptible -- but not necessarily as magic-related.)

[JoeJ]

If PCs see three people look at them in the street, and one of them start casting a spell, don't you think that the PCs will at least consider this may be an attack and tell them to stop?

That depends on the players. Some will immediately attack, others will wait and find out what is happening. Some will assume it's just background detail and ignore it. Fortunately, there is an easy way to find out how the players at your specific table react to NPCs casting spells in social settings. And then you can have most NPCs react the same way. After all, it doesn't matter whether or not spellcasting triggers hostility in your world; what matters is that the DM and the other players are in agreement about whether or not it does.

[cookieface]

Something I think I will do in my next session zero will be to ask all the of the players, "If you were living in this world, how would you react if you saw someone casting a spell in your vicinity?" followed by "How would your PC react?"

That would give you a variety of reactions to the situation that are all reasonable to use as a DM, while also getting players to think about RPing their PC before the campaign even gets started.

[Segev]

This is something that should be part of session 0.

GM: In this world, magic is obvious. The gestures and sounds you make are unlike normal conversation - they are unmistakably supernatural. Further, magic is common. Even the most isolated of rural folk know that magic exists are and have seen and heard spells being cast. If they see you casting, they will probably not be able to identify the spell, but they will know you just cast a spell. They will react accordingly.With this setup, you should also establish what "react accordingly" means. If they're used to magic being something they're all well aware of, is it just "oh, that's just a spell, and nobody lit on fire, so it's probably fine," or is it more "she smells like flowers! She's probably mind-controlling all the men into her bed! Burn the witch!"

It seems to me that a lot of these arguments are missing my point, which is that they're saying "this one kind of magic is known immediately to be magic, and nothing else is ever mistaken for magic, and magic is always assumed to be horrifying and hostile and to be treated like they mean the worst possible harm we can imagine...but nothing else will even make us blink at the possibility that it might be magic, unless it really is magic being done by PCs, in which case obviously we know something magical is being done and react with hostility."


If the car salesman said to me 'Would you like a drink or something to eat? It'll help you feel more relaxed, make you like me and make you feel slightly indebted so it'll be easier for me to pressure you into buying something.' the desired effect would not have been achieved. Pulling back the curtain can and does effect the outcomes.

Casting a spell in front of someones face says to them 'You needed magic to help you do something and apparently the thing you currently want to do is talk to me...'.If the used car salesman offers you a bottled water, are you going to assume it's laced with a judgment-inhibiting substance?

If he takes a moment to apply some powder to his sweaty face to try to look a bit more presentable, are you going to hold that more against him than the fact he was less presentable before he did so? If he asks his assistant to bring in a chart that will make him better able to present his case to you, do you assume he now cannot be trusted where before you were inclined to believe him, so now it's harder for him to sell you a car?


You don't. But you do know that someone did some mystic chanting with specific tones, pitch and intonations, and intricate gesticulations associated with magic right in front of you right this second. You can suspect all that other stuff, and maybe that's smart to do when adventurers are involved, but the casting of a spell in this conversation isn't a suspicion, it's a guarantee. You know it happened. And apparently these upstart adventurers think so little of Example Monarch here that they think he wouldn't care about such a colossal breach of etiquette.If it's a colossal breach of etiquette, presumably that's well known. I question why it would be, though. Example Noble having his family priest say a short blessing over him before he gives a presentation to the court is likely as expected as making sure his fly is zipped and that he's wearing proper court attire. Anything to make yourself look more impressive and help you put your best foot forward is expected as a sign of respect to the court and the king. I would, in fact, venture to suggest that a cleric might give blessings officially before every presentation, and to the King for his own discernment, etc. etc. Multiple clerics, if Concentration is a known issue.

This has precedent in the real world. I hesitate to give examples lest I violate forum rules. But I hardly think a fictional setting where gods are known to answer prayers would have fewer invocations and benedictions than real world events. The faux pas may arise from the Wrong Religion being present - it may well be that the Priestess of Lolth in your party giving you a "blessing" might be seen as blasphemous even if she really did merely cast guidance, and the likelihood they'd trust that that's what she's doing is slim (barring somebody actually making the "recognize spell" roll...which almost certainly watchers are set up to do).


Something I think I will do in my next session zero will be to ask all the of the players, "If you were living in this world, how would you react if you saw someone casting a spell in your vicinity?" followed by "How would your PC react?"

That would give you a variety of reactions to the situation that are all reasonable to use as a DM, while also getting players to think about RPing their PC before the campaign even gets started.
This is reasonable. You may also wish to outline what the commonality and typical beliefs about magic are.

[JackPhoenix]

If it's a colossal breach of etiquette, presumably that's well known. I question why it would be, though. Example Noble having his family priest say a short blessing over him before he gives a presentation to the court is likely as expected as making sure his fly is zipped and that he's wearing proper court attire. Anything to make yourself look more impressive and help you put your best foot forward is expected as a sign of respect to the court and the king. I would, in fact, venture to suggest that a cleric might give blessings officially before every presentation, and to the King for his own discernment, etc. etc. Multiple clerics, if Concentration is a known issue.

By that logic, it should be expected everyone Charms the king first. You can't get more of a best foot forward than having the king consider you his friend, can you? Dressing nicely is *not* the equivalent of (potentially) using mind-influencing magic.

It seems your stance to the discussion is that either all magic is permissible, or none is, instead of it being context-dependent. What's acceptable for king's trusted advisor may not be acceptable for a random stranger.

[Tanarii]

; what matters is that the DM and the other players are in agreement about whether or not it does.Hey now, let's not be reasonable here!

[diplomancer]

Better have a Lore Bard, with Bardic Inspiration for the negotiating Paladin, who has used a Perfume of Bewitching (a common, 50GP, magic item), and Cutting Words for any check the king might make. Because that's all totally kosher, unlike Guidance, which immediately gets the party thrown in jail or worse...


This is only half true.

Diplomancer was discussing how spells being inherently "perceptible" was not added until XGE. In the PHB, it just states that words and gestures are needed. By PHB's RAW, you could easily make the ruling that the words could be said under one's breath and the gestures could be subtle enough so as to not be immediately obvious to everyone around.

And either way, something like Bard spells are perceptible, yes, but not even in XGE does it say that spells being cast are known to be spells. Just that the verbal and somatic components are perceptible, so a Bard casting Calm Emotions could literally take the form of her singing and dancing in order to calm the room. (It makes a tenuous connection to someone being able "to perceive that a spell is being cast in their presence", but that is as a rhetorical question without giving a hard-and-fast answer. It simply answers that the verbal, somatic, and material components are perceptible -- but not necessarily as magic-related.)

Thank you, yes, that's the point I'm making; no Xanathar=no guidance at all, to the point of some DMs thinking that NOT EVEN subtle spell would make a casting impercebtible: "people are still sensing the drawing up of magic power by the rise of the hair on the back of their necks", while others thinking more on my line "components exist, are perceivable, and are the usual way a spell is actually perceived, but there are ways to conceal them which a creative character might use and fool any but the most knowledgeable on the arcane". Xanathar's rule, if used, revokes the first interpretation, but it simply does not address anything else.

PHB rules, if anything, would say an Arcana check is required, so you will know "lore about spells", telling you that the somewhat unusual behaviour (though even then, there's nothing unusual about a Bard playing a song, which fulfills ALL the components requirements of a spell unless there are costly material components involved) of this person is actually the casting of a spell.

[noob]

Better have a Lore Bard, with Bardic Inspiration for the negotiating Paladin, who has used a Perfume of Bewitching (a common, 50GP, magic item), and Cutting Words for any check the king might make. Because that's all totally kosher, unlike Guidance, which immediately gets the party thrown in jail or worse...

Bonus if the cutting words are screaming "objection" while pointing at the king.

[J.C.]

Just cast Guidance all the time. That way it is not unusual should Guidance interject in a conversation you are having. E.g., "the Force is with me, I am one with the Force"

[greenstone]

Having thought about this, and rememberd what the players in my last few games did, I think my main problem with this is the inequality.

GM: The NPC casts a spell.
Players: What is it? Counterspell!!! I challenge him, "What was that spell? Tell me or I'll beat you up!" Let's go elsewhere, I'm not dealing with this dodgy merchant.

Player: My character casts a spell.
GM: The NPC counterspells it.
Player: How? Why would they do that? It's just a cantrip! I should be able to cast it so quickly they can't react! They are just a shopkeeper, how do they know what a spell is anyway!

Player: My character casts a spell.
GM: The NPC gets upset.
Player: Why? It's just a spell! It's a cantrip! Why is it every time we cast a spell you make the NPCs get upset and angry? It's not fair! Fine, I just won't do anything during any social encounter ever.

That last sentence is not exaggeration, by the way. I had a player say and do exactly that.

Segev's comment about appropriate reactions is spot-on.

In a small village, if the shopkeeper sees you casting they almost certainly won't know what it is. However, in a magic world, they will know that friends and guidance and charm magic exists, so they will be suspicious.

In a big town, the shopkeeper will probably have learnt those spells. Their reaction is going to be, "Hey, that was a friends cantrip. What gives? I guess we sit here for a minutte, saying nothing, then start negotiating again, but my low price is now twice what it was."

[JoeJ]

Just cast Guidance all the time. That way it is not unusual should Guidance interject in a conversation you are having. E.g., "the Force is with me, I am one with the Force"

If you tell me you're casting Guidance all the time, I'm going to require you to clap your hands three times and chant, "Pelor* sanctus Dominus, ut benedicat mihi actiones" before you're allowed to tell me anything that your character does.

(*Replace "Pelor" with the name of a deity of your choice.)

[J.C.]

If you tell me you're casting Guidance all the time, I'm going to require you to clap your hands three times and chant, "Pelor* sanctus Dominus, ut benedicat mihi actiones" before you're allowed to tell me anything that your character does.

(*Replace "Pelor" with the name of a deity of your choice.)

Sure. Not a problem. Gesundheit.

[Valmark]

Having thought about this, and rememberd what the players in my last few games did, I think my main problem with this is the inequality.

GM: The NPC casts a spell.
Players: What is it? Counterspell!!! I challenge him, "What was that spell? Tell me or I'll beat you up!" Let's go elsewhere, I'm not dealing with this dodgy merchant.

Player: My character casts a spell.
GM: The NPC counterspells it.
Player: How? Why would they do that? It's just a cantrip! I should be able to cast it so quickly they can't react! They are just a shopkeeper, how do they know what a spell is anyway!

Player: My character casts a spell.
GM: The NPC gets upset.
Player: Why? It's just a spell! It's a cantrip! Why is it every time we cast a spell you make the NPCs get upset and angry? It's not fair! Fine, I just won't do anything during any social encounter ever.

That last sentence is not exaggeration, by the way. I had a player say and do exactly that.

Segev's comment about appropriate reactions is spot-on.

In a small village, if the shopkeeper sees you casting they almost certainly won't know what it is. However, in a magic world, they will know that friends and guidance and charm magic exists, so they will be suspicious.

In a big town, the shopkeeper will probably have learnt those spells. Their reaction is going to be, "Hey, that was a friends cantrip. What gives? I guess we sit here for a minutte, saying nothing, then start negotiating again, but my low price is now twice what it was."
Honestly yes, if the PCs react like in the first case they should expect the npcs reacting similarly.

Most of the characters I play wouldn't worry about somebody casting a spell assuming the situation isn't suspicious for example- nor would they expect others to have problems with them casting a spell.

If you tell me you're casting Guidance all the time, I'm going to require you to clap your hands three times and chant, "Pelor* sanctus Dominus, ut benedicat mihi actiones" before you're allowed to tell me anything that your character does.

(*Replace "Pelor" with the name of a deity of your choice.)

I red that imagining singing and adding a twirl and that's honestly a beautiful image.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Something I think I will do in my next session zero will be to ask all the of the players, "If you were living in this world, how would you react if you saw someone casting a spell in your vicinity?" followed by "How would your PC react?"

That would give you a variety of reactions to the situation that are all reasonable to use as a DM, while also getting players to think about RPing their PC before the campaign even gets started.

Something I think is worth noting is that, at least in many settings I'm aware of, spellcasting ability isn't as ubiquitous as it can seem from the parties perspective and when it is (particularly in larger cities of the setting) there are usually laws involved.

For your party and your frequent acquaintances, it may not arouse suspicion to be casting spells out in the open but the people around you don't know you, they probably don't even know what you're doing. If they can tell its a magical thing and they don't understand it... well, they're going to be suspicious whether it was a simple guidance spell or an actual threat against them and I think that's a reasonable conclusion for them to make based on what they know.

Or to just echo the simpler point: Context matters a lot. Doing this in a crowded area is unlikely to grab much attention (unless that's the goal) but doing it in an enclosed space (a tavern, storefront or throne room) is certain to turn heads and arouse suspicion, whether its warranted or not.

[Tanarii]

If you tell me you're casting Guidance all the time, I'm going to require you to clap your hands three times and chant, "Pelor* sanctus Dominus, ut benedicat mihi actiones" before you're allowed to tell me anything that your character does.
This works. Either way you're preventing it. They decline, or they agree and the other players strangle them after the first session.

[Elbeyon]

Several races get cantrips for free, and the most common spells in the world, cantrips, can be cast endlessly. The average person will have seen more good, helpful magic than bad. The average person is not going to stab a priest over blessing them. The average person is not going to be upset at someone that uses prestidigitation, The player characters are outliers in that they are commonly attacked and murdered. They live dangerous, often paranoid lives compared to a commoner. It should not be expected that a character and commoner have the same reaction.

[Segev]

By that logic, it should be expected everyone Charms the king first. You can't get more of a best foot forward than having the king consider you his friend, can you? Dressing nicely is *not* the equivalent of (potentially) using mind-influencing magic.

It seems your stance to the discussion is that either all magic is permissible, or none is, instead of it being context-dependent. What's acceptable for king's trusted advisor may not be acceptable for a random stranger.
No, my stance is that people will recognize common things as common. The King will doubtless have somebody who is watching spells being cast; he will alert the king and his retinue if something like a charm or dominate effect is attempted. He will also not raise an alarm over a simple buff.

The notion that magic is simultaneously so commln that people believe in it and know it when they see it and fear it to the point of hostility, but also so rare that powerful potentates cant have experts on hand to watch for it and don't have their own divine advisors providing them with guidance is a bit of a stretch to me.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Several races get cantrips for free, and the most common spells in the world, cantrips, can be cast endlessly. The average person will have seen more good, helpful magic than bad. The average person is not going to stab a priest over blessing them. The average person is not going to be upset at someone that uses prestidigitation, The player characters are outliers in that they are commonly attacked and murdered. They live dangerous, often paranoid lives compared to a commoner. It should not be expected that a character and commoner have the same reaction.

The average person has usually approached or been approached by the priest, either asking for or being offered a blessing. It's not something that just happens around them, and if it does I doubt they're going to immediately relate the experience as "well the priest says those funny words when we go to the church, so this guy who just rolled up must also be blessing me".

Flatout outrage or being attacked afterwards would probably be a significant overreaction but distrust from the perspective of someone who only experiences magic in select environments or around powerful public figures is reasonable.

Cleric's are a good example though, they would probably be the most likely to get away with random spellcasting so long as their holy symbol is noticeable and belongs to a god that is recognized as good in the area.


No, my stance is that people will recognize common things as common. The King will doubtless have somebody who is watching spells being cast; he will alert the king and his retinue if something like a charm or dominate effect is attempted. He will also not raise an alarm over a simple buff.

The notion that magic is simultaneously so commln that people believe in it and know it when they see it and fear it to the point of hostility, but also so rare that powerful potentates cant have experts on hand to watch for it and don't have their own divine advisors providing them with guidance is a bit of a stretch to me.
There's no reason for those to be mutually exclusive, though again I think the stance that it would foster active hostility is overblowing it a bit.

My own personal take on the King thing, by the way, is that the King would be foolish to allow anyone other than his trusted people to be casting spells. Who's to say that his magical advisor hasn't been dominated and then immediately tells him "no sire, it was a simple blessing spell he receives from his god, nothing to worry about".

Heck, I don't even think it's reasonable for most people to be armed much less carrying spell components in a king's throne room. In this environment, I think its entirely reasonable for spellcasting to be forbidden without explicit permission regardless of what you're doing.

[JoeJ]

My own personal take on the King thing, by the way, is that the King would be foolish to allow anyone other than his trusted people to be casting spells. Who's to say that his magical advisor hasn't been dominated and then immediately tells him "no sire, it was a simple blessing spell he receives from his god, nothing to worry about".

Heck, I don't even think it's reasonable for most people to be armed much less carrying spell components in a king's throne room. In this environment, I think its entirely reasonable for spellcasting to be forbidden without explicit permission regardless of what you're doing.

My thought is that most royal courts will have an official whose job it is to make sure that visitors know the correct protocol (forms of address, when to kneel, etc.), see that they're dressed properly, and double check that they're not carrying anything they shouldn't. You don't get to see the king until that person is satisfied that you're not going to ignorantly do or say something offensive and get yourself into trouble.

[SharkForce]

I'm a bit confused here.

1) why do people think are just wandering around randomly blessing *anyone* with a 1-minute duration buff? even if we presume most towns have a priest, actually using the guidance spell is probably reserved for important events where success or failure is important and you can't afford to just try again.

2) why do people think that guidance as cast by a priest of, say, pelor, is identical to when a priest of kord or tyr or tempus or paladine?

3) why do people think anyone is going to accept "well, let's let them cast the spell first, and then *after* they've used their magic decide whether we wanted to let them use magic or not"

now sure, you walk up to some random civilian, they aren't going to pick a fight with an adventuring group, even if they could somehow tell you're only level 1. you have real weapons and real armour, and they probably have maybe a leather apron or two shirts layered on top of each other for armour with maybe a knife or club or pitchfork, and that's assuming they have time to prepare. but again, if you're going to meet anyone with enough wealth and/or power to have armed guards, don't expect those guards to let you cast a spell unless their boss very specifically tells them to.

so sure, you can use guidance when haggling over the price of a room in that tavern. congratulations, you saved yourself a couple of copper coins by invoking the power of your deity, and the tavern owner probably doesn't much like you but also probably won't really do anything about it apart from maybe giving you bad service.

try to pull that kind of crap on a merchant who sells expensive jewelry or clothing or art, and don't expect anything good to come of it. likewise if you try that on a noble, or the town guards (presuming we're talking about a town large enough to have full-time dedicated town guards, that is), etc.

basically, anyone who has something valuable enough that it is likely to be worth the attention of adventurers has more to lose than to gain. why? because they don't stand to gain anything, and it represents a risk (however minor). why would they do that? now, you *might* be able to pull something off if, for example, you offer to cast a spell that benefits *them* and then sneak in spells other than the promised one. but in general, you are looking at risk vs reward, and the reward is a big fat zero. especially as a guard, you do not want to be the one that let someone cast a spell on your boss without their explicit consent; that's a good way to lose your job and not be able to get work elsewhere.

[Anymage]

My own personal take on the King thing, by the way, is that the King would be foolish to allow anyone other than his trusted people to be casting spells. Who's to say that his magical advisor hasn't been dominated and then immediately tells him "no sire, it was a simple blessing spell he receives from his god, nothing to worry about".

If the magical advisor has been compromised, the king needs to be paranoid on all fronts instead of just a bunch of adventurers.

Really, though, a big problem is that D&D doesn't make most of its fluff explicit and people like to argue around the margins of that. If I'm at a royal banquet and cast Prestidigitation to warm up my food, complete with magical energy clearly going from my fingers into the food, that's like reaching into my jacket pocket to pull out my phone if I'm in a crowd and the president is speaking. Someone will notice as the spellcast is begun, but they'll also stand down since it's clear a moment later that there's no harm. (At least until someone else argues that there's no rule saying that Charm Person can't also look like that, and all spells that don't have an explicit visual signature now have misleadingly innocent looking ones.) That kind of leans into spellcasting being obvious, though.

The more that spells have no sensory signal beyond what's mandated in the description, the easier it is to conceal spells but also the trickier things are if you do get spotted. (And if this is the king's court, someone around will spot you.) If the only way they can tell the difference between a Fox's Cunning spell so you can remember exact enemy placements better and a Charm Person attempt on a member of the court is when the charm's duration expires (and no chance if the target made his save), it's very reasonable to expect all spells to be the worst case scenario unless you're talking a very well known and trusted caster.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If the magical advisor has been compromised, the king needs to be paranoid on all fronts instead of just a bunch of adventurers.
The ideal solution is no one casts magic in the throne room but that would leave the king vulnerable in other ways.

The king should be paranoid on all fronts, though that doesn't mean he can't have a trusted circle.


Really, though, a big problem is that D&D doesn't make most of its fluff explicit and people like to argue around the margins of that. If I'm at a royal banquet and cast Prestidigitation to warm up my food, complete with magical energy clearly going from my fingers into the food, that's like reaching into my jacket pocket to pull out my phone if I'm in a crowd and the president is speaking. Someone will notice as the spellcast is begun, but they'll also stand down since it's clear a moment later that there's no harm. (At least until someone else argues that there's no rule saying that Charm Person can't also look like that, and all spells that don't have an explicit visual signature now have misleadingly innocent looking ones.) That kind of leans into spellcasting being obvious, though.

There's also the small crumb of this line:

Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise.
There a huge number of spells that have no perceivable effect. The analogy is poor, it's not like you've reached into your pocket and pulled out a phone, what you've pulled out can't be recognized except in cases where it's explicitly meant to be. Schrodinger's Phone.

The act of casting the spell is nebulous, but since this debate focuses on the assumption that it does become obvious that a spell was cast (those who would rule that it isn't probably don't really care about these issues) but the perceptible effects are more or less clear. It either says what it looks like, in which case you see a phone, or it doesn't, in which case you see nothing but know they did something.

Prestidigitation has entirely perceivable effects, clothes are cleaned, food is warmed/chilled/seasoned, colors appear and glow on a surface. Dominate Person has no perceivable effects... and neither does Guidance.

[Angelalex242]

Guidance is Clerics, Druids, and people with magic initiate, mostly.

So it mostly IS going to be the Cleric praying 'Pelor bless my voice' and the somatic component may well be folding your hands in prayer.

The Druid, meanwhile, is gonna be saying something like 'Nature bless my voice.' The Druid may equally be folding their hands in prayer.

Indeed, when commoners fold their hands in prayer, they're unconsciously mimicing the somatic component for guidance.

[GeoffWatson]

Really, though, a big problem is that D&D doesn't make most of its fluff explicit and people like to argue around the margins of that. If I'm at a royal banquet and cast Prestidigitation to warm up my food, complete with magical energy clearly going from my fingers into the food, that's like reaching into my jacket pocket to pull out my phone if I'm in a crowd and the president is speaking. Someone will notice as the spellcast is begun, but they'll also stand down since it's clear a moment later that there's no harm. (At least until someone else argues that there's no rule saying that Charm Person can't also look like that, and all spells that don't have an explicit visual signature now have misleadingly innocent looking ones.) That kind of leans into spellcasting being obvious, though.

If a phone could also be a sniper rifle, grenade, nuke, or worse, and you can't tell the difference until after they've fired (like how spells work), then phones would be much more restricted.

[Avonar]

Guidance is Clerics, Druids, and people with magic initiate, mostly.

So it mostly IS going to be the Cleric praying 'Pelor bless my voice' and the somatic component may well be folding your hands in prayer.

The Druid, meanwhile, is gonna be saying something like 'Nature bless my voice.' The Druid may equally be folding their hands in prayer.

Indeed, when commoners fold their hands in prayer, they're unconsciously mimicing the somatic component for guidance.

Are they? Seems like a personal take rather than a fact.

There's no description for the words or somatic components, so we can't say definitely "this is how it works". It's a DM call, but personally I don't allow for trying to disguise spellcasting unless there's a good reason, such as a distraction.

[JackPhoenix]

No, my stance is that people will recognize common things as common. The King will doubtless have somebody who is watching spells being cast; he will alert the king and his retinue if something like a charm or dominate effect is attempted. He will also not raise an alarm over a simple buff.

The notion that magic is simultaneously so commln that people believe in it and know it when they see it and fear it to the point of hostility, but also so rare that powerful potentates cant have experts on hand to watch for it and don't have their own divine advisors providing them with guidance is a bit of a stretch to me.

"My liege'" says baron Traitor McPowerhungry "Allow my personal cleric.... who certainly isn't an evil archmage wearing holy symbol... to cast a spell on me so I can better influence your decision in my speech."
"Of course." replies king Dupe McSoontobedead. "After all, it is a sign of respect to do anything you can to get me to do whatever you want. But my personal priest will watch in an attempt to identify what spell is being cast, as that is all the security I need, even though there's nothing he can do if it's a different spell."
*Certainly-not-an-evil-archmage cast a spell*
"Huh" thinks court priest Caster McUseless as he uses his reaction to identify the spell being cast. "I can't tell what spell is being cast, but that's not surprising. Even if it's another cleric, my knowledge of magic isn't that good. Well, I'm sure everything is all right, and it's really Guidance, and not some high-level wizard spell... it's not like I could have done anything about that even if I knew Counterspell, as I've spent the time trying to figure out what spell it is instead of stoping it."
*King turns into a pile of dust as mr. Evil McArchmage, currently pretending to be the baron's personal cleric, casts Disintegrate on him instead of casting Guidance on the guy who hired him.
"Well" says baron Traitor McPowerhungry "It seems the king is dead. Does anyone within disintegration range objects to my claim to the crown? No? Excellent! My first decree is that spellcasting is forbidden within 150 feet of the king unless you're his loyal and well-paid advisor on the pain of summary execution. I don't want to end up like the last three idiots."

[diplomancer]

"My liege'" says baron Traitor McPowerhungry "Allow my personal cleric.... who certainly isn't an evil archmage wearing holy symbol... to cast a spell on me so I can better influence your decision in my speech."
"Of course." replies king Dupe McSoontobedead. "After all, it is a sign of respect to do anything you can to get me to do whatever you want. But my personal priest will watch in an attempt to identify what spell is being cast, as that is all the security I need, even though there's nothing he can do if it's a different spell."
*Certainly-not-an-evil-archmage cast a spell*
"Huh" thinks court priest Caster McUseless as he uses his reaction to identify the spell being cast. "I can't tell what spell is being cast, but that's not surprising. Even if it's another cleric, my knowledge of magic isn't that good. Well, I'm sure everything is all right, and it's really Guidance, and not some high-level wizard spell... it's not like I could have done anything about that even if I knew Counterspell, as I've spent the time trying to figure out what spell it is instead of stoping it."
*King turns into a pile of dust as mr. Evil McArchmage, currently pretending to be the baron's personal cleric, casts Disintegrate on him instead of casting Guidance on the guy who hired him.
"Well" says baron Traitor McPowerhungry "It seems the king is dead. Does anyone within disintegration range objects to my claim to the crown? No? Excellent! My first decree is that spellcasting is forbidden within 150 feet of the king unless you're his loyal and well-paid advisor on the pain of summary execution. I don't want to end up like the last three idiots."

Fifty guards armed with Heavy Crossbows fire at the Archmage. If he uses Shield to have any chance of surviving the onslaught, his next spell will be Counterspelled by the magical advisor, and he won't have a reaction free to Counterspell it. Second round of fire should finish him off. Assuming the Disintegrate hits (King might roll well, even with zero bonus to the save, it's still a 20% chance of passing), Heir to the throne gets the throne (or, depending on how rich and powerful the King is, he gets Resurrected). Baron Traitor McPowerHungry gets publically disembowelled, then hanged, drawn and quartered, his heirs are thrown in exile and his lands are forfeited to the crown, which are probably worth more than the price of resurrection, specially if he can casually hire Archmages to die for the sake of his ambition.

Or this never happens except in Baron Traitor McPowerHungry stupid power fantasies, because that's exactly how it would go.

[Telok]

I always thought of spellcasting more like a squirt gun. Sometimes you can tell it's cheap trash and see the food coloring dribbling out or smell the mouthwash. Sometimes it's a high quality sealed and lined squirt gun full of nerve agent or acid. It may be that they put a custom setup in a cheap casing with a compressed gas cylinder and some 100% pure hydrogen peroxide, giving them a one-shot toxic death flamethrower.

But apparently there are things on the outer and inner planes that give these things to just about anyone willing to bargan a soul or two. So someone walks up to you and pulls a squirt gun... Perfume? Mouthwash? Date rape drug? Acid? Poison? Burning death? Make your decision in under three seconds or you get sprayed.

[Elbeyon]

Does anyone here make using magic illegal? That used to be a thing people did.

[Anymage]

If a phone could also be a sniper rifle, grenade, nuke, or worse, and you can't tell the difference until after they've fired (like how spells work), then phones would be much more restricted.

My main point was exactly that. If there was flavor that could be reasonably interpreted and trusted as saying that the spell was safe, people could be more comfortable relaxing after the initial moment of tensing up. (You can't know what someone is casting when they start casting, but it's also very hard to interrupt a spell once casting has started. If someone within range wants to cast a spell on you, they'll probably be able to and all you can do is hope the consequences dissuade any bad actors.)

RAW there isn't any visible sign to a spell unless the spell effect specifically creates one, but I've never seen a DM who would turn down a few words of flavor text that filled the scene out a bit. That's why I said there's a difference between whether or not others can reliably tell whether or not others can tell that a given spellcast did or did not affect them or anyone else important.


"My liege'" says baron Traitor McPowerhungry "Allow my personal cleric.... who certainly isn't an evil archmage wearing holy symbol... to cast a spell on me so I can better influence your decision in my speech."...

First, to repeat myself, it's hard to stop a spellcast once someone has started. You can have harsh punishment's for someone who tries such a thing, but those won't stop you from taking whatever effect the spell brings.

Second, if you have an eleventh level character handy, a monk can never be disarmed and can do a crapton of damage if he just up and pounces on someone. Maybe not as much as a disintegrate to the face, but the monk doesn't let the target save for 0 damage either. It's also hard to stop an attack on the round that it's launched too, so again you just have to hope the consequences of attempted regicide are severe enough that nobody wants to try.

Third. Casting a spell while trying to hammer out trade agreements isn't something the king would necessarily like, but might well allow on the grounds that the other guy probably won't go along if the king asks to be the only one buffed and that better results come from both sides being buffed than neither. Similar if the king is the judge in a trial (wanting both sides to be buffed is okay under similar logic that the truthful party will hopefully benefit more from divine assistance), or if he's listening to an advisor (and if the PCs are asking him to send reinforcements to help stave off an orc invasion, it's not an antagonistic exchange so much as trying to convince the king that this threat is important enough to pull troops away from other locations and leave them less defended). At this point it's okay to have some magic, provided that it's clear whether or not the spell is kosher immediately after it's cast.

[Valmark]

Does anyone here make using magic illegal? That used to be a thing people did.

The problem with this is that then you get illegal mages doing bad stuff and can't counter them because nobody knows anything about magic. Unless you ban several spells (especially higher leveled ones) from the game it's way worst to make magic illegal then to regulate it.

[JoeJ]

The problem with this is that then you get illegal mages doing bad stuff and can't counter them because nobody knows anything about magic. Unless you ban several spells (especially higher leveled ones) from the game it's way worst to make magic illegal then to regulate it.

You counter the illegal mages with crossbows and swords. Neither mage armor nor shield will keep them alive very long against superior numbers. If it's illegal to practice or teach magic, and low level outlaw mages are vigorously hunted down, there won't be any high level outlaw mages to worry about.

edit: And if one of them does live long enough to become a threat, the great god Dyzan has gifted his clerics with miraculous powers to counter the evil witchcraft of the criminal mage.

[Valmark]

You counter the illegal mages with crossbows and swords. Neither mage armor nor shield will keep them alive very long against superior numbers. If it's illegal to practice or teach magic, and low level outlaw mages are vigorously hunted down, there won't be any high level outlaw mages to worry about.

edit: And if one of them does live long enough to become a threat, the great god Dyzan has gifted his clerics with miraculous powers to counter the evil witchcraft of the criminal mage.

The problem with this is that even low level magic (as in, 1st level spells) gives ways to get away if that's what you need- for example Fog Cloud to break line of sight and get eventually coupled with Disguise Self to look like any other random citizen (or even stuff like other guards). Of course it also depends on your class.

Not sure I understand the edit- if magic is illegal then you can't use magic to fight magic.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Regarding "it's just like a phone" - I'd say even with a phone, if you are attending a confidential meeting or something, it's possible that you will be required to switch off your phone or even leave it outside the meeting room. Most of the time phones are not used to record things, but they could be. Same goes for just pulling out your phone and seemingly aiming your camera at the other person - they probably won't like it.

Now, another thing to consider - if there's no way to distinguish Charm/Dominate Person and Guidance, and if the other party is sufficiently paranoid (as they should be, if it's an important conversation and you are trying to convince them of something), I don't see any reason why would they trust you casting the latter and not the former, especially without warning. Sure, you _might_ be just casting a harmless spell, but the risk is too great if it's the former. You can compare that to offering a wine to a king. Most of the time wine is not used to poison people, but it could be, and king would be totally justified in having someone else drink the wine first just in case it's poisoned. The difference between bottle of wine and a spell, is that _if_ the spell is harmful, you have way less time and opportunity to stop it.

[JoeJ]

The problem with this is that even low level magic (as in, 1st level spells) gives ways to get away if that's what you need- for example Fog Cloud to break line of sight and get eventually coupled with Disguise Self to look like any other random citizen (or even stuff like other guards). Of course it also depends on your class.

Not sure I understand the edit- if magic is illegal then you can't use magic to fight magic.

Low level magic does not give anything close to a guarantee of getting away, especially if you're outnumbered, surrounded, and/or taken by surprise. Sometimes you'll succeed of course, but the odds are likely to catch up with you eventually. And there's still the difficulty of finding teachers or libraries to do magical research when you have to stay hidden.

No one is using magic to fight magic; that would be cooperating with evil. They're using the divine miracles of the priest-kings and their servants to fight magic, which is a competely different thing (at least as far as the law is concerned).

The world I'm describing will have something of a Days of Future Past feel to it, which is obviously not a scenario to be sprung on your players without warning. It would be a definiing feature of the world and, as such, needs to be highlighted when you recruit players, so they'll start the game knowing what to expect.

[Damon_Tor]

"My liege'" says baron Traitor McPowerhungry "Allow my personal cleric.... who certainly isn't an evil archmage wearing holy symbol... to cast a spell on me so I can better influence your decision in my speech."
"Of course." replies king Dupe McSoontobedead. "After all, it is a sign of respect to do anything you can to get me to do whatever you want. But my personal priest will watch in an attempt to identify what spell is being cast, as that is all the security I need, even though there's nothing he can do if it's a different spell."
*Certainly-not-an-evil-archmage cast a spell*
"Huh" thinks court priest Caster McUseless as he uses his reaction to identify the spell being cast. "I can't tell what spell is being cast, but that's not surprising. Even if it's another cleric, my knowledge of magic isn't that good. Well, I'm sure everything is all right, and it's really Guidance, and not some high-level wizard spell... it's not like I could have done anything about that even if I knew Counterspell, as I've spent the time trying to figure out what spell it is instead of stoping it."
*King turns into a pile of dust as mr. Evil McArchmage, currently pretending to be the baron's personal cleric, casts Disintegrate on him instead of casting Guidance on the guy who hired him.
"Well" says baron Traitor McPowerhungry "It seems the king is dead. Does anyone within disintegration range objects to my claim to the crown? No? Excellent! My first decree is that spellcasting is forbidden within 150 feet of the king unless you're his loyal and well-paid advisor on the pain of summary execution. I don't want to end up like the last three idiots."

Why would a wizard capable of casting Disintigrate be working for the Baron? If magic is common enough that lesser nobles can afford to hire an 11th level wizard, in which case the King would almost certainly have access to magic users as well. Your scenario assumes the Baron's wizard is powerful enough to cow the whole room once the king is dead. Where is the King's 13th level wizard or his 7 8th level apprentices? Why doesn't the king have his cleric cast Death Ward on him every day before court? That would seem to be a very reasonable precaution.

And of course a wizard can't cast Disintegrate with a holy symbol: it's not really possible for a wizard to pretend to be a cleric in this way. It's also clear by the way that Disintigrate is cast who the target is: it doesn't need to be identified as disintegrate specifically, it just needs to be obvious that it's targeting the king to justify the use of a counterspell... or for the King's mundane bodyguards to jump in front of him with their shields to provide total cover (an action they have readied every round because that's their whole job).

[Valmark]

Low level magic does not give anything close to a guarantee of getting away, especially if you're outnumbered, surrounded, and/or taken by surprise. Sometimes you'll succeed of course, but the odds are likely to catch up with you eventually. And there's still the difficulty of finding teachers or libraries to do magical research when you have to stay hidden.

No one is using magic to fight magic; that would be cooperating with evil. They're using the divine miracles of the priest-kings and their servants to fight magic, which is a competely different thing (at least as far as the law is concerned).

The world I'm describing will have something of a Days of Future Past feel to it, which is obviously not a scenario to be sprung on your players without warning. It would be a definiing feature of the world and, as such, needs to be highlighted when you recruit players, so they'll start the game knowing what to expect.

Like I said, Fog Cloud alone would allow you to get away (basically like a smoke bomb) in that example unless they indeed take you by surprise and kill you in a single round. Once you start getting levels the odds of being catched start dropping, not raising.

"Using divine miracles" is still magic though. At that point you're regulating it, not outlawing it (like I said it'd be better).

And yeah, such a setting should be presented well in advance since it differs wildly from the basic assumptions.

[clearstream]

Guidance lasts 1 minute so the players could've cast it first and then went up and then rolled. Why would you decide that the charisma check is rolled during or after the actual conversation? You're just training your players to always cast guidance before they begin to speak to an NPC.
NPCs who live in a world with guidance might deliberately protract negotiations...

[clearstream]

There a huge number of spells that have no perceivable effect. The analogy is poor...
The perceptible effect sentence is problematic. It amounts to - unless a spell is perceptible, it is not perceptible - a DM still has decide what might be perceptible. In a world with magic effects, it's possible that creatures are sensitive to them. They might feel a tingling, an anxiety, clamminess... who really knows? There's been a lot of debate on this subject (things like - can you tell if a Hex is making you weak?) and I haven't yet seen a resolution better than - each DM decides (ideally in a way that is consistent in their world).

[Tanarii]

Regarding "it's just like a phone" - I'd say even with a phone, if you are attending a confidential meeting or something, it's possible that you will be required to switch off your phone or even leave it outside the meeting room. Most of the time phones are not used to record things, but they could be. Same goes for just pulling out your phone and seemingly aiming your camera at the other person - they probably won't like it. yeah, that was my second though about the phone analogy. Right after "phones aren't deadly weapons, spells are".

[Angelalex242]

Are they? Seems like a personal take rather than a fact.

There's no description for the words or somatic components, so we can't say definitely "this is how it works". It's a DM call, but personally I don't allow for trying to disguise spellcasting unless there's a good reason, such as a distraction.

Truth is, somatic components for spells are not described for any spell, neither are the verbal components.

So, it varies by DM.

If Guidance were used Order of the Stick style, though, the cleric would have to shout 'guidance!' as per the rules of that universe.

[Tanarii]

Truth is, somatic components for spells are not described for any spell, neither are the verbal components.
The PHB describes both Verbal and Somatic components on p203

[Angelalex242]

A generalization. Not specific verbage and specific gestures for specific spells. There is ludicrous amounts of room for interpretations.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The perceptible effect sentence is problematic. It amounts to - unless a spell is perceptible, it is not perceptible - a DM still has decide what might be perceptible. In a world with magic effects, it's possible that creatures are sensitive to them. They might feel a tingling, an anxiety, clamminess... who really knows? There's been a lot of debate on this subject (things like - can you tell if a Hex is making you weak?) and I haven't yet seen a resolution better than - each DM decides (ideally in a way that is consistent in their world).

Sure, it's always up to the DM when it comes to resolution on these things regardless of how the rules portray them. A common example in spellcasting is Burning Hands, which by the rules requires you to not just have thumbs to even be capable of casting it, but to also touch them together in a very obvious way.

This doesn't mean its problematic though, the game has a DM to arbitrate here for a reason and in all cases but AL it only matters if they're consistent in their own settings, as you say at the end. For online discussions though, I like to assume the guidelines are followed with the least amount of bias possible, a spell is only perceptible after casting if it has an effect that says it is.

[JoeJ]

Like I said, Fog Cloud alone would allow you to get away (basically like a smoke bomb) in that example unless they indeed take you by surprise and kill you in a single round. Once you start getting levels the odds of being catched start dropping, not raising.

A smoke bomb that anybody can walk or shoot through won't let you escape without quite a bit of luck.


"Using divine miracles" is still magic though. At that point you're regulating it, not outlawing it (like I said it'd be better).

Outlawed doesn't usually mean it's illegal for the government to do.

[Jakinbandw]

This works. Either way you're preventing it. They decline, or they agree and the other players strangle them after the first session.


Just make it clear that it's the gms fault each time.

"I'm sorry guys, but if I don't do this we'll likely fail, and the gm wants me to say (blah, blah, blah). I try to open the locked chest so we can get a reward for this dungeon."

[Segev]

Once again, we seem to have saves who recognize all the threats that spellcasting can represent, but are too gullible to worry about any other kind of magic and too unclever to come up with any solution other than to ban spellcasting.

Banning spellcasting in the King's presence is believable, though overkill and weird specific if you don't ban anything that could be mistaken for magic. Like perfume, jewelry, sticks, armor, weapons, and anyone known to have abilities that are in any way magical. Because you cannot tell when a monk uses ki, and he could be on top of the King in moments, just like Baron Traitorface's mage could cast improved kingkiller.

Or you could have more reasonable security that fits a culture where divine and arcane magic are, if not household items, at least are things that are part of the fabric of life. Especially priests in higher eschellons of society.

[MoiMagnus]

Side question but not unrelated.

Assuming a King open to magic, and wealthy enough to have multiple low level clerics, including one casting Guidance on him on a regular basis. Would the King have interest in having another of his clerics cast Guidance on the person asking for an audience with him too? Making his guest more able to express his thoughts, hence raising the general level of the conversation?

[Avonar]

Side question but not unrelated.

Assuming a King open to magic, and wealthy enough to have multiple low level clerics, including one casting Guidance on him on a regular basis. Would the King have interest in having another of his clerics cast Guidance on the person asking for an audience with him too? Making his guest more able to express his thoughts, hence raising the general level of the conversation?

I doubt it, since it could make someone better at lying to him as well.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Side question but not unrelated.

Assuming a King open to magic, and wealthy enough to have multiple low level clerics, including one casting Guidance on him on a regular basis. Would the King have interest in having another of his clerics cast Guidance on the person asking for an audience with him too? Making his guest more able to express his thoughts, hence raising the general level of the conversation?

A benevolent and perhaps a tiny bit naïve King might, but to expand on the above a King generally wants to have the advantage in all his dealings.

I think its more likely that a person with honest intentions to the King wouldn't need the help to express them, and someone who gained this audience with dishonest intentions could only stand to benefit from this in a way that could end negatively for the King.

That's assuming there isn't some sort of truth seeking magic at work as well, I recall that in DCA there was an incident where one of the players lied in a magistrate hall and began to glow brightly with magic.

[Tanarii]

A generalization. Not specific verbage and specific gestures for specific spells. There is ludicrous amounts of room for interpretations.
It is sufficient to rule out common-language prayers while making the sign of your holy symbol.

[Segev]

Side question but not unrelated.

Assuming a King open to magic, and wealthy enough to have multiple low level clerics, including one casting Guidance on him on a regular basis. Would the King have interest in having another of his clerics cast Guidance on the person asking for an audience with him too? Making his guest more able to express his thoughts, hence raising the general level of the conversation?

It could go either way. How often would you expect a priest to pray for blessings on proceedings in a pious court? I would think at least at the start of every case. That said, it COULD make people better at lying, but it also can make people better at expressing themselves, which is going to be appreciated. The King should also be blessed to discern things, and honestly, a zone of truth for important cases doesn't seem out of line. Sure, people can save against it, but it's still a stronger protection than "well, we won't give him a blessing for his presentation."

[Mellack]

It could go either way. How often would you expect a priest to pray for blessings on proceedings in a pious court? I would think at least at the start of every case. That said, it COULD make people better at lying, but it also can make people better at expressing themselves, which is going to be appreciated. The King should also be blessed to discern things, and honestly, a zone of truth for important cases doesn't seem out of line. Sure, people can save against it, but it's still a stronger protection than "well, we won't give him a blessing for his presentation."

Personally I think there may often be ritual blessings, but not often actual castings even of cantrips. My reason is that they would generally be useless. Guidance lasts only a minute. Any speech or explanation will take far longer than that, meaning the spell expired. Since the spell requires concentration, it takes some effort. People usually do not like to put out effort with no effect.

[JoeJ]

Just make it clear that it's the gms fault each time.

"I'm sorry guys, but if I don't do this we'll likely fail, and the gm wants me to say (blah, blah, blah). I try to open the locked chest so we can get a reward for this dungeon."

And that will work if the other players are too dumb to have noticed that the DM only does this to PCs who are spamming cantrips.

[Segev]

Personally I think there may often be ritual blessings, but not often actual castings even of cantrips. My reason is that they would generally be useless. Guidance lasts only a minute. Any speech or explanation will take far longer than that, meaning the spell expired. Since the spell requires concentration, it takes some effort. People usually do not like to put out effort with no effect.

This depends strongly on what the DM rules the timing on the roll is. Is the guidance benefitting the action, making you better at something, or is it benefitting the out of character roll of the dice, with a timing that the characters have no way of knowing because they don't know they live in a game?

[noob]

And that will work if the other players are too dumb to have noticed that the DM only does this to PCs who are spamming cantrips.

Which is like 100% of the casters(even non dedicated ones like artificers as long as they still have cantrips) in a low in rests adventure.

[Angelalex242]

Well, if you're doing practical magic, I would imagine the courthouse in the kingdom has a zone of truth over the whole thing. The King may or may not want a throne room with zone of truth. Depends on how pious the kingdom is, and if the king has a trinket that lets him lie in a zone of truth.

Lawful Evil kings would definitely have a zone of truth in their court with a trinket that makes them immune to the effect. Such a setup gives him advantage on all deception checks.

[Valmark]

A smoke bomb that anybody can walk or shoot through won't let you escape without quite a bit of luck.

Outlawed doesn't usually mean it's illegal for the government to do.

Well, ideally you don't stay in the fog for the others to shoot at you.

That'd be regulating it, not banning it. If something is outlawed the government should be the last one to do it since it's against the same law it should uphold.

[P. G. Macer]

Which is like 100% of the casters(even non dedicated ones like artificers as long as they still have cantrips) in a low in rests adventure.

There’s a difference between multiple castings of fire bolt or sacred flame due to highly limited, slow-regaining spell slots, and literally casting guidance every in-game minute to get a +1d4 bonus on ability checks.Personally, I feel OP is justified in having consequences for suddenly casting a spell in the middle of a conversation. Not coincidentally, I also believe that V & S components are unable to be disguised as (lowercase-c) common language and gestures. As for the prevalence of spellcasting in a D&D society, I feel like the default (if it can be said to exist) is that the frequency of magic is unevenly distributed throughout social strata, but outside of adventurers, it’s not frequent enough to allay suspicions when someone casts a spell immediately prior to or during a conversation.

[JoeJ]

Which is like 100% of the casters(even non dedicated ones like artificers as long as they still have cantrips) in a low in rests adventure.

No, only PCs who have spammable cantrips, like Guidance, and no common sense. Spamming in this context, if you look back at what I was suggesting, doesn't mean casting an attack cantrip every round in combat. It means continually casting Guidance (in this particular example) every 60 seconds that you're awake, just so you always have that extra d4 for any roll you have to make.


Well, ideally you don't stay in the fog for the others to shoot at you.

That'd be regulating it, not banning it. If something is outlawed the government should be the last one to do it since it's against the same law it should uphold.

Hmm... how to answer this without violating the rule against real world politics. Let's just say that I don't envision very many rulers abiding by that interpretation of "outlaw".

[Angelalex242]

It's also all gameworld and kingdom dependent.

The kingdom of Magico might be a magocracy where your worth is determined by how many levels of arcane spellcasting you have, and it's pretty much expected that people will be using arcane magic every 5 seconds. The Kingdom of Magico might also ban divine magic of any kind, considering the gods worthless. They might view Bards and even Warlocks as '2nd class citizens' but still better than the 'slave tier' of all non arcane casters. Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights might occupy a 3rd class citizen rank, because they're not spellcasters up to 9th level.

On the other hand is the Kingdom of Pelor, which is a Theocracy. Pelor Rules, his high priest comes right after that, and Divine Magic is fine as long as you worship Pelor. People of allied religions (Heironeus, Kord, etc.) might be 2nd class citizens, while neutral gods might be 3rd class citizens. Expect to be executed on sight if you worship an evil god. They might ban arcane magic as a heresy against their god, for all magic that does not come from their god is an evil. In the kingdom of Pelor, who you worship is more important than how many levels of divine caster you have, so Paladins of Pelor outrank clerics of Heironeus, but Clerics always outrank Paladins.

There might also be the kingdom of Normalo where they hate magic so much the entire capital city has an antimagic field over it, and standard antimagic rules apply. In this kingdom, outside the capital city, any spellcasting is a capital offense on which you will be immediately executed.

Lastly, way out there in the wildnerness is the kingdom of Natureo, ruled by the Druidic Order. 2nd class citizens include Rangers of any sort. Paladins of Ancients get the same rank as Rangers, Paladins of any OTHER Oath are treated like clerics, and nobody likes clerics around here. Arcane magic also disrupts the natural order of things. There's probably a lot of Fey in the kingdom of Natureo, and they live alongside the other races there in harmony.

[heavyfuel]

Once again, we seem to have saves who recognize all the threats that spellcasting can represent, but are too gullible to worry about any other kind of magic and too unclever to come up with any solution other than to ban spellcasting.

Banning spellcasting in the King's presence is believable, though overkill and weird specific if you don't ban anything that could be mistaken for magic. Like perfume, jewelry, sticks, armor, weapons, and anyone known to have abilities that are in any way magical. Because you cannot tell when a monk uses ki, and he could be on top of the King in moments, just like Baron Traitorface's mage could cast improved kingkiller.

Or you could have more reasonable security that fits a culture where divine and arcane magic are, if not household items, at least are things that are part of the fabric of life. Especially priests in higher eschellons of society.

Magic Items are rarer than Spellcasting pretty much by default. If it's truly an important person, like a King, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to have his trusted court Wizard using ritual Detect Magic on a somewhat frequent basis to check for magic items.

As for the Monk, I'm not saying Monks can't be dangerous, but the damage a Monk can do in one round (before the entirety of the King's bodyguards and court spellcasters decide to obliterate the Monk) is far below the damage an Enchantment spell could have.

[Kane0]

*raises hand* I’d like to play a High Elf Nature Cleric from Natureo please

[diplomancer]

Magic Items are rarer than Spellcasting pretty much by default. If it's truly an important person, like a King, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to have his trusted court Wizard using ritual Detect Magic on a somewhat frequent basis to check for magic items.

Which can be fooled by a 2nd level spell, Nystul's Magical Aura, that becomes permanent after repeated castings for 30 days; my Lore Bard, who got it as a Magical Secret for precisely this reason, has covered the whole party in it, permanently.

[GeoffWatson]

Once again, we seem to have saves who recognize all the threats that spellcasting can represent, but are too gullible to worry about any other kind of magic and too unclever to come up with any solution other than to ban spellcasting.

Banning spellcasting in the King's presence is believable, though overkill and weird specific if you don't ban anything that could be mistaken for magic. Like perfume, jewelry, sticks, armor, weapons, and anyone known to have abilities that are in any way magical. Because you cannot tell when a monk uses ki, and he could be on top of the King in moments, just like Baron Traitorface's mage could cast improved kingkiller.

Or you could have more reasonable security that fits a culture where divine and arcane magic are, if not household items, at least are things that are part of the fabric of life. Especially priests in higher eschellons of society.

Just because people dislike unsolicited spellcasting doesn't mean that they would not also dislike use of magic items, so why bring that up?

Restricting spell casting in the king's presence, doesn't mean a total and complete ban on magic.

[Segev]

Just because people dislike unsolicited spellcasting doesn't mean that they would not also dislike use of magic items, so why bring that up?

Restricting spell casting in the king's presence, doesn't mean a total and complete ban on magic.

I bring it up because it seems that the reaction to things that should raise the same level of ire on the suspicion of magical shenanigans are dismissed.

[Angelalex242]

*raises hand* I’d like to play a High Elf Nature Cleric from Natureo please

I thought about that. But wouldn't be hilarious if for some reason the Druids treated Nature Clerics as heretics.

(Should've been a Druid to begin with!)

[Damon_Tor]

Once again, we seem to have saves who recognize all the threats that spellcasting can represent, but are too gullible to worry about any other kind of magic and too unclever to come up with any solution other than to ban spellcasting.

Banning spellcasting in the King's presence is believable, though overkill and weird specific if you don't ban anything that could be mistaken for magic. Like perfume, jewelry, sticks, armor, weapons, and anyone known to have abilities that are in any way magical. Because you cannot tell when a monk uses ki, and he could be on top of the King in moments, just like Baron Traitorface's mage could cast improved kingkiller.

Or you could have more reasonable security that fits a culture where divine and arcane magic are, if not household items, at least are things that are part of the fabric of life. Especially priests in higher eschellons of society.

Right, declaring someplace a "gunmagic free zone" isn't really useful, especially in the example of Baron Traitor McBadguy and his wizard pal: apparently in that world there is literally nothing anybody can do against a high level spellcaster whether you see the spell coming or not, so why would the wizard assassin care about your law? What's even the point of it?

[heavyfuel]

Which can be fooled by a 2nd level spell, Nystul's Magical Aura, that becomes permanent after repeated castings for 30 days; my Lore Bard, who got it as a Magical Secret for precisely this reason, has covered the whole party in it, permanently.

Yeah, but then you need the person trying to use the magic item to have access to that spell, which isn't a given.

You're never going to be 100% secure from magic (except maybe if you live inside a giantic permanent AMF) but every step you take is an additional security measure spellcasters will have to circumvent. At some point, you have to accept you've taken all possible measures and roll the dice.

Still, there's a huuuge difference between "this person might have a rare magical perfume that influences those who smell it and also have access to long lasting magic that disguises these magical properties" and "there's a dude casting an unknown spell right in front of me"

[Anymage]

Right, declaring someplace a "gunmagic free zone" isn't really useful, especially in the example of Baron Traitor McBadguy and his wizard pal: apparently in that world there is literally nothing anybody can do against a high level spellcaster whether you see the spell coming or not, so why would the wizard assassin care about your law? What's even the point of it?

For starters, laws have a hard time stopping people from doing something. Forum rules (not laws, but close enough) cannot stop me from creating a post full of political ramblings and racial slurs. The filter is trivially bypassed if someone wanted to do such a thing. The consequences of having my posts immediately deleted and my account banned are meant to dissuade me, but those can only apply after I hit the "post" button and at least one other person sees it.

There are also security factors that would be entirely reasonable in world but that would be extra hassle to think through and play around. The king's court and person should absolutely be swaddled in magic protections on top of mundane-ish precautions like making sure that nobody can bring in a component pouch or focus. Some combination of not wanting to think through the mechanical effects of what's meant to be a minor fluff scene, not wanting to upset the visuals that we as players expect of a king's court to more accurately reflect what it would look like with proper security measures in place, and not wanting to detail the players being patted down and dispelled before getting to do their big protagonisty stuff in the throne room keeps these from all being written up in game despite the fact that these would all be smart and reasonable things to expect in universe.

[diplomancer]

Yeah, but then you need the person trying to use the magic item to have access to that spell, which isn't a given.

You're never going to be 100% secure from magic (except maybe if you live inside a giantic permanent AMF) but every step you take is an additional security measure spellcasters will have to circumvent. At some point, you have to accept you've taken all possible measures and roll the dice.

Still, there's a huuuge difference between "this person might have a rare magical perfume that influences those who smell it and also have access to long lasting magic that disguises these magical properties" and "there's a dude casting an unknown spell right in front of me"

The "rare" perfume is a Common, 50gp magic item. Being paranoid about people casting Guidance makes less sense than being paranoid about magically influenting items.

Really, making sure that no undetectable enchantment spells are cast at the king is as simple as having Detect Magic cast on him

[JoeJ]

The "rare" perfume is a Common, 50gp magic item.

OTOH, it won't work if the king is a CR3 knight instead of a CR 1/8 noble. And it only lasts an hour. Unless you're already one of the king's favorite people, you'll probably wait longer than that for your turn to speak to him.

[heavyfuel]

The "rare" perfume is a Common, 50gp magic item. Being paranoid about people casting Guidance makes less sense than being paranoid about magically influenting items.

Really, making sure that no undetectable enchantment spells are cast at the king is as simple as having Detect Magic cast on him

I didn't realize it was an actual item... :smallbiggrin:

But fair enough. Ban perfumes as well, unless the important NPC knows such lowly items have effect on them (because their CR is higher than one)

[diplomancer]

I didn't realize it was an actual item... :smallbiggrin:

But fair enough. Ban perfumes as well, unless the important NPC knows such lowly items have effect on them (because their CR is higher than one)

Ban perfumes?! What kind of barbaric court are we talking about? Have you any idea how those crowded throne rooms can smell on a hot summer day? :p

[Kane0]

PC: "I'm casting guidance to help fellow PC"

Peasant: "Oi then what's with the babbling? Sounds like some foreigner insult to me!"
Guardsman: "Hands down sir! Try that again and I'll have to arrest you."
Merchant: "Hey now none of that. No magic discounts and no cursing the merchandise!"
Barkeep: "Try that and i'll call the lads. You pay your keep like everyone else"
Urchin: "Hey mistah can I get a blessin? Will it give me good luck?"
Priest: "You will refrain from such profanity in my presence"
Noble: "How vulgar, Alivar tries that trick all the time too!"
Lord: "Magister, are the countermeasures not in place this morn?"

[schm0]

Just to tack on to this thread, resonance is a very specific word meaning that means "the quality in a sound of being deep, full, and reverberating." It's just not something that can be passed off mid-conversation. You might as well belch loudly in the middle of your sentence and hope that nobody noticed.

Anything else is a house rule.

As far as somatic components go, I use Dr. Strange as an excellent example of what it takes to cast a typical spell. Nothing is done with a flick of the wrist. It is either a singular, forceful motion or an intricate pattern.

[Ogun]

We frequently will prebuff with Guidance for social encounters, but yeah, casting it during a conversation would a put off at best and in all likelihood, a provocation.
Like pulling a knife, it could be entirely appropriate, in a kitchen , or workshop, but during a conversation...

[JackPhoenix]

Right, declaring someplace a "gunmagic free zone" isn't really useful, especially in the example of Baron Traitor McBadguy and his wizard pal: apparently in that world there is literally nothing anybody can do against a high level spellcaster whether you see the spell coming or not, so why would the wizard assassin care about your law? What's even the point of it?

Of course there is. Counterspell stops spells before they happen. That's why it exist. But for that to work, the caster needs to spend his reaction on Counterspell, not on trying to identify a spell in a situation where spellcasting should be prohibited in the first place. That was the entire point of that absurd example: letting strangers cast spells and hoping it's as harmless as they say is stupid. You either stop them right away, or suffer the consequences.

Hell, you don't even need the security mage present, just cover the throne room with Glyphs of Warding loaded with Counterspell on a proper trigger. Expensive, but worth it: the hostile caster can't counter GoW CS, and even if the spell he's casting is of a higher level than the CS loaded into the glyphs, it'll propably get countered anyway if you face 5 or so Counterspells at once. And whoever sets that up doesn't need more than 5 caster levels.

[J.C.]

Cantrips are different.

There is nothing keeping someone from spamming them so why not spam them?

Spamming makes certain spells commonplace. As long as someone has the Arcana skill they should be able to recognize cantrips without requiring the expenditure of a Reaction.

Guidance would be something spammed often by any Divine caster and easily recognized.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Cantrips are different.

There is nothing keeping someone from spamming them so why not spam them?

Spamming makes certain spells commonplace.

Guidance would be something spammed often by any Divine caster and easily recognized.

Just because you can do something at any time doesn't mean you should.

[J.C.]

Just because you can do something at any time doesn't mean you should.

If you cast easily recognizable spells that are cast all the time in the campaign and you present yourself as a Cleric or a Druid of a friendly faith then no one should be alarmed by you casting Guidance. Guidance is the bread and butter of your profession.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If you cast easily recognizable spells that are cast all the time in the campaign and you present yourself as a Cleric or a Druid then no one should be alarmed by you casting Guidance.

Not everyone is a Cleric or Druid, most people aren't even spellcasters of any sort. Again, like I said when I jumped onto this thread myself, Adventurers have a skewed perception of how common magical ability is, their line of work leads them to those sort of people and they almost always fill that role themselves, but for the vast majority of people even cantrips are uncommon. Magic is know of, understood as real and powerful but likely not able to be accurately recognized by most people.

Guidance in particular was especially uncommon before Artificer's came to be because Clerics are rare. Not every priest is given divine spellcasting from their god and Druid's tend not to venture into populated areas. It might not have even be all that recognizable under those circumstances.

This, of course, can vary depending on the setting but I think from our perspective as the Adventurer's we make magic out to be a lot more mundane than it ought to be.

[J.C.]

Not everyone is a Cleric or Druid, most people aren't even spellcasters of any sort. Again, like I said when I jumped onto this thread myself, Adventurers have a skewed perception of how common magical ability is, their line of work leads them to those sort of people and they almost always fill that role themselves, but for the vast majority of people even cantrips are uncommon. Magic is know of, understood as real and powerful but likely not able to be accurately recognized by most people.

Guidance in particular was especially uncommon before Artificer's came to be because Clerics are rare. Not every priest is given divine spellcasting from their god and Druid's tend not to venture into populated areas. It might not have even be all that recognizable under those circumstances.

This, of course, can vary depending on the setting but I think from our perspective as the Adventurer's we make magic out to be a lot more mundane than it ought to be.

Clerics of Tyr are trusted. And they just cast Guidance in front of everybody. Everyone knows the components of the Guidance spell.

[JackPhoenix]

If you cast easily recognizable spells that are cast all the time in the campaign and you present yourself as a Cleric or a Druid of a friendly faith then no one should be alarmed by you casting Guidance. Guidance is the bread and butter of your profession.

DC 15 Arcana check is not "easily recognizable".

[JoeJ]

Cantrips are different.

There is nothing keeping someone from spamming them so why not spam them?

Next time you play, I suggest that every 60 seconds you clap your hands three times and chant, "Sanctus dominus Pelor, ut benedicat mihi actiones." The reactions of the other players after the twentieth time you do this will help you understand why your character should not spam Guidance.

[P. G. Macer]

Clerics of Tyr are trusted. And they just cast Guidance in front of everybody. Everyone knows the components of the Guidance spell.

Not everyone plays in the Forgotten Realms (or using the Fantasy-Historical Pantheons from Appendix B of the Player’s Handbook), and not everyone who claims to be a cleric of Tyr will actually be a cleric of Tyr. What if the person claiming to be a cleric of Tyr is actually a cleric of Cyric, the CE Prince of Lies?

You’re carrying a lot of assumptions whose foundations have already been questioned and deconstructed in this thread.

[J.C.]

Next time you play, I suggest that every 60 seconds you clap your hands three times and chant, "Sanctus dominus Pelor, ut benedicat mihi actiones." The reactions of the other players after the twentieth time you do this will help you understand why your character should not spam Guidance.

My character belongs to a sect where we do this by decree of our order.

Every minute.

"The Force is with me. I am one with the Force."

While looking downward in reverence.

Hands tracing a symbol.

Guided Bolt/Arrow. ["Guidance"]

[JoeJ]

My character belongs to a sect where we do this by decree of our order.

Every minute.

"The Force is with me. I am one with the Force."

While looking downward in reverence.

Hands tracing a symbol.

Guided Bolt/Arrow. ["Guidance"]

So are members of your order generally hermits, or do they expect to only live about 10-15 minutes before being strangled?

[J.C.]

So are members of your order generally hermits, or do they expect to only live about 10-15 minutes before being strangled?

Is that amount of discipline unusual to you?

[diplomancer]

Just to tack on to this thread, resonance is a very specific word meaning that means "the quality in a sound of being deep, full, and reverberating." It's just not something that can be passed off mid-conversation. You might as well belch loudly in the middle of your sentence and hope that nobody noticed.

Anything else is a house rule.

As far as somatic components go, I use Dr. Strange as an excellent example of what it takes to cast a typical spell. Nothing is done with a flick of the wrist. It is either a singular, forceful motion or an intricate pattern.

Vocal resonance (which is what we are talking about) is about where the sound is amplified, not how much it is amplified. Granted, there is some degree of amplification and so whispers are right out, as is, probably, "regular speech", (though people that work with their voices, news readers, actors, and sports narrators, for instance, are trained to use their voices with some amount of resonance, and might do it all the time) But religious chants, and singing in general, are in, and they can actualy be quite soft.

As to somatic components- playing an instrument satisfies them (intricate pattern), as do "religious gestures" (which forum rules prevent me from giving real-world examples, but I'm sure you can think of some)

[JoeJ]

Is that amount of discipline unusual to you?

The relevant word here is not "unusual," it's "annoying." If your character insists on doing this every 60 seconds, there won't be a lot of people willing to spend time with them.

[J.C.]

The relevant word here is not "unusual," it's "annoying." If your character insists on doing this every 60 seconds, there won't be a lot of people willing to spend time with them.

Except those who seek Tyr's blessings and guidance.

[JoeJ]

Except those who seek Tyr's blessings and guidance.

Tyr's blessing isn't worth putting up with that. Try doing it at the table, once a minute nonstop, and see how long it takes before the other players tell you to knock it off.

[J.C.]

Tyr's blessing isn't worth putting up with that. Try doing it at the table, once a minute nonstop, and see how long it takes before the other players tell you to knock it off.

{Scrubbed}

[JoeJ]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'm not going to discuss real religions, but if you're chanting anything over and over again every 60 seconds while trying to interact with other people you'll either be asked to knock it off or the other people you're trying to interact with will go away.

[J.C.]

I'm not going to discuss real religions, but if you're chanting anything over and over again every 60 seconds while trying to interact with other people you'll either be asked to knock it off or the other people you're trying to interact with will go away.

{Scrubbed}

[Kane0]

I think I found an actual example of that. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdhF4O54YjU)

And that's still annoying. Even popular characters with popular catchphrases get annoying when repeated ad nauseam (that is what it means after all).

[Larsen]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Casting a cantrip is way different than a quick "hail mary"...

It take the most part of 6 seconds and involves complexe gestures as well.

Even then, i would find someone saying "Hail Mary" every minute to be annoying. And ask them if they can stop, especially if they do so in the middle of a conversation.

[J.C.]

I think I found an actual example of that. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdhF4O54YjU)

And that's still annoying. Even popular characters with popular catchphrases get annoying when repeated ad nauseam (that is what it means after all).

{Scrubbed} What are your thoughts? Let us look at the hologram of Princess Leia.

I am more than capable of defeating every last one of you.


Casting a cantrip is way different than a quick "hail mary"...

It take the most part of 6 seconds and involves complexe gestures as well.

Even then, i would find someone saying "Hail Mary" every minute to be annoying. And ask them if they can stop, especially if they do so in the middle of a conversation.

{Scrubbed}

[JoeJ]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Chanting anything every 60 seconds is incredibly annoying. And as DM, I will tell you flat out that your deity absolutely does not expect, require, or even want that from anybody, and will not empower a spammed spell. You can stop and cast Guidance before you undertake a significant action if you want, but you can't have it going continuously to benefit unexpected die rolls.

[J.C.]

Chanting anything every 60 seconds is incredibly annoying. And as DM, I will tell you flat out that your deity absolutely does not expect, require, or even want that from anybody, and will not empower a spammed spell. You can stop and cast Guidance before you undertake a significant action if you want, but you can't have it going continuously to benefit unexpected die rolls.

{Scrubbed}

[Valmark]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Not every minute.

[diplomancer]

Casting a cantrip is way different than a quick "hail mary"...

It take the most part of 6 seconds (snip)

This is one of the MANY misconceptions surrounding RAW spellcasting. That you can only perform one such action in the space of six seconds by no way means that the active, speaking and gesturing part of it takes about six seconds. Sure, that's ONE way the DM may interpret it, but he can just as easily interpret it as "having your mind occupied" for the better part of six seconds, so you can't do much else during that time'.

Arguably, this interpretation makes more sense of Quickened casting, for instance. It's not that you magick yourself into speaking really fast and making intricate gestures quickly (which would have a probably unwanted comic effect), it's that you can release the magical energy faster, without it focusing your mind that long.

Nevertheless, both interpretations are valid by RAW, so this is (yet another) one of those "ask your DM" things.

[J.C.]

Not every minute.

Yes. My character's order requires every minute. Sometimes under his breath. {Scrubbed}

[diplomancer]

Yes. My character's order requires every minute. Sometimes under his breath.

DM says "under spellcasting rules, which require the chanting of mystical words with particular resonance, every time you say it under your breath, the spellcasting fails. Therefore, the assumption is that, unless ypu have recently (within the last minute) said "I cast Guidance" (or whatever flavour words you've previously declared to mean "I cast Guidance), there is no ongoing Guidance effect. Your character is just a weirdo who puts strangers off by constantly muttering to himself"

[J.C.]

DM says "under spellcasting rules, which require the chanting of mystical words with particular resonance, every time you say it under your breath, the spellcasting fails. Therefore, the assumption is that, unless ypu have recently (within the last minute) said "I cast Guidance" , there is no ongoing Guidance effect. Your character is just a weirdo who puts strangers off by constantly muttering to himself"

Nope. The spell is always cast appropriately with resonance or whatever else.

[diplomancer]

Nope. The spell is always cast appropriately with resonance or whatever else.

-"I'm going to add a d4 to my initiative, I rolled a 3, so it's 16"
- DM smiles at the excentric player and puts the character on initiative count 13.

A player really can't beat the DM at this game, unless he cheats, adding the results of the d4 without announcing it (in which case he should be thrown out of the game).

[J.C.]

"The Force is with me. I am one with the Force."

[Amnestic]

"The Force is with me. I am one with the Force."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this quote.

Yes, he said it, but not constantly. He wasn't muttering it every minute by any stretch of the imagination. And if he had done, it would have been immensely annoying. And if it had been part of an unknown magical spell people would have found that concerning outside of his immediate friend group.

[Glorthindel]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this quote.

Yes, he said it, but not constantly. He wasn't muttering it every minute by any stretch of the imagination. And if he had done, it would have been immensely annoying. And if it had been part of an unknown magical spell people would have found that concerning outside of his immediate friend group.

I just giggled at the thought of watching one of the movies, and playing that line every 60 seconds when a Jedi character is on screen. I wonder if I could make it 15 minutes before I was throwing something at the screen.

[CapnWildefyr]

PC: "I'm casting guidance to help fellow PC"

Peasant: "Oi then what's with the babbling? Sounds like some foreigner insult to me!"
Guardsman: "Hands down sir! Try that again and I'll have to arrest you."
Merchant: "Hey now none of that. No magic discounts and no cursing the merchandise!"
Barkeep: "Try that and i'll call the lads. You pay your keep like everyone else"
Urchin: "Hey mistah can I get a blessin? Will it give me good luck?"
Priest: "You will refrain from such profanity in my presence"
Noble: "How vulgar, Alivar tries that trick all the time too!"
Lord: "Magister, are the countermeasures not in place this morn?"

Trying to steer back to the OP, applying disadvantage is entirely spot-on. Kane-O sums it up nicely. There are few (as in, almost zero) situations where casting Guidance in a conversation, such that someone can see it, will NOT be taken poorly. (And you can't RAW roleplay subtle spellcasting, without a DM override.)

Magic-savvy people will see the cantrip as a spell and, since they know what spells can do, will not be happy about it.
Magic-ignorant people will more likely react out of fear and exaggeration, and react worse than than the magic-savvy person.
Only someone truly ignorant of magic (as in, never heard of it) wouldn't care.


Can you imagine walking into a car dealership, and when you're negotiating price, the salesperson's buddy casts Guidance and the salesperson says, "Oh, don't mind him, he's just trying to help me negotiate well so you spend 1d4 thousand more than you have to."

I can hear one of these in-game conversations now:
"Do you mind if my friend casts guidance, that I may better declare my intentions?"
"Sure, as long as you don't mind me casting dominate, but solely to make sure it's a fair discussion. You understand."

[CapnWildefyr]

I should add, however, that you don't need subtle spell if you have a distraction.

PC1: Now, it's is time for us to talk.
NPC: Agreed.
PC2: starts casting guidance.
PC3: Sees PC2 and immediately points and yells "Oh, by the sweet gods of flour and yeast! FRESH BREAD! I haven't smelled that in TWO MONTHS!"

[Elbeyon]

-"I'm going to add a d4 to my initiative, I rolled a 3, so it's 16"
- DM smiles at the excentric player and puts the character on initiative count 13.

A player really can't beat the DM at this game, unless he cheats, adding the results of the d4 without announcing it (in which case he should be thrown out of the game).The DM shouldn't lie to the player about whether or not a their character cast a spell. The character would know if they cast a spell or not. Obviously, the player and dm need to have a talk over casting spells and guidance.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The DM shouldn't lie to the player about whether or not a their character cast a spell. The character would know if they cast a spell or not. Obviously, the player and dm need to have a talk over casting spells and guidance.

In my opinion, "I cast guidance every minute for the rest of this campaign" does not warrant a response. You say it when you do it, if you want to cast it every minute I'd better hear about it every minute or you didn't cast it.

[MoiMagnus]

-"I'm going to add a d4 to my initiative, I rolled a 3, so it's 16"
- DM smiles at the excentric player and puts the character on initiative count 13.

A player really can't beat the DM at this game, unless he cheats, adding the results of the d4 without announcing it (in which case he should be thrown out of the game).

Do your player details all the bonus they add to their roll rather than just saying the final result of 16?
At my tables, peoples only do that when they have a doubt and implicitly ask for the other player to confirm that they don't mess up, or when they remember an additional bonus few seconds after announcing the first result ("wait, I had +1d4, so 16 instead!").

I'm assuming here that (a) the player is in good faith thinking that they can use Guidance for initiative, and (b) that the DM already approved the fact that Guidance is cast almost continuously by the character [which most DM probably would not].
If (b) is not established, then I'd expect "16 for initiative, counting Guidance" to be said instead, with the DM correcting them saying that Guidance doesn't apply and asking for the result without Guidance.

[kazaryu]

As far as I'm concerned, suddenly casting a spell without warning the people around you (and/or having them trust you) is going to get you the same treatment as suddenly pulling out a gun or a grenade and waving it at people.
.

this seems like an odd comparison.

in the first place: you're comparing something that is exclusively a weapon to something that...well, isn't. which is obviously silly.

then on top of that. you're adding extra context to make the appearance of that 'weapon' even worse (i.e. waving it around). the reaction you're going to get from calmly pulling out a gun, is going to be very different from waving it around wildly. because someone that is apparently crazy, is always going to get a different response than a person who appears sane, regardless if they're armed.

since neither of these things are actually true of spellcasting, why not look at the things that *would* affect a persons reaction to magic. Based on what you said, magic is obviously common/well known enough that the person recognizes a spell being cast. why would they assume that its hostile? in a society where magic exists, particularly the spells available in dnd. Non hostile spells are *by far* going to be more commonly cast than hostile ones. why? because they're far, far more earth shattering. create food and water? goodberry? cure wounds, guidance, resistance, mending. all of these spells existing has a much much larger impact on how society would evolve compared to damage spells.

it seems to me that unless a person has reason to distrust you, they'd tend to assume you're not just suddenly going to attack them. because thats how real people think.

in other words: the type of people that would randomly attack you are so rare in society, that it seems unrealistic that that is the go-to assumption when it comes to magic. particularly because non-hostile magic is far, far more powerful in terms of affecting society than hostile magic.

[Angelalex242]

this seems like an odd comparison.

in the first place: you're comparing something that is exclusively a weapon to something that...well, isn't. which is obviously silly.

then on top of that. you're adding extra context to make the appearance of that 'weapon' even worse (i.e. waving it around). the reaction you're going to get from calmly pulling out a gun, is going to be very different from waving it around wildly. because someone that is apparently crazy, is always going to get a different response than a person who appears sane, regardless if they're armed.

since neither of these things are actually true of spellcasting, why not look at the things that *would* affect a persons reaction to magic. Based on what you said, magic is obviously common/well known enough that the person recognizes a spell being cast. why would they assume that its hostile? in a society where magic exists, particularly the spells available in dnd. Non hostile spells are *by far* going to be more commonly cast than hostile ones. why? because they're far, far more earth shattering. create food and water? goodberry? cure wounds, guidance, resistance, mending. all of these spells existing has a much much larger impact on how society would evolve compared to damage spells.

it seems to me that unless a person has reason to distrust you, they'd tend to assume you're not just suddenly going to attack them. because thats how real people think.

in other words: the type of people that would randomly attack you are so rare in society, that it seems unrealistic that that is the go-to assumption when it comes to magic. particularly because non-hostile magic is far, far more powerful in terms of affecting society than hostile magic.

Now I disagree. Plenty of unscrupulous people are probably using charm person on the maidens about the same way roofies get used in real life. Sure, those characters all have neutral or even evil on their character sheets, but they're out there.