Friends and Message Cantrip Combo? Should This Work?

[SKW05]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AttilatheYeon]

Use Change Self instead.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

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

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


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

[Nifft]

Friends was a mistake.

[Asisreo1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The spell states that the character realizes you performed magic on it and it's hostile towards you. It doesn't matter if you weren't seen casting the spell or not, they are hostile towards you. That doesn't mean that they will attack you.

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

[Riggdgames]

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

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

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

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

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

[SKW05]

Use Change Self instead.

Do you mean Disguise Self?

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

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

checks against a non-hostile creature of your choice

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

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

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

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

[Reynaert]

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

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

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


IMO, you can't have it both ways.

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

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

[Segev]

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

[Mr Adventurer]

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

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

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

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

[Keravath]

Here is the text of the cantrips.

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


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



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

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

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

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

[Damon_Tor]

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

[Mr Adventurer]

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

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

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

[Reynaert]

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

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

[Greywander]

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

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

[Nifft]

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

I mean, you're just begging the question about how the magic helped make the target friendlier towards you in the first place.

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

Something to remember is that people spend a precious cantrip slot on this spell.

Quite possibly a bad decision.

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

[Greywander]

I mean, you're just begging the question about how the magic helped make the target friendlier towards you in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

Quite possibly a bad decision.

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

Charm Person?

[Asisreo1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lvl 2 Expert]

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

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

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

[Greywander]

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

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

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

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

I don't think cantrips are all that precious.[...]
So any party with two spellcasters might find a cantrip slot just hanging out, instead of acid splash or shocking grasp that you'll never want to need to use, picking up friends may be okay. Especially if the campaign is intrigue based. Sometimes, you want to piss someone off.

It's easy to think this if you're more combat focused. You really only need one or two combat cantrips. I like playing utility characters, so I find I'm frequently cantrip-starved. There are a lot of different utility cantrips that each do different things. Would you take Friends over, say, Mold Earth? Mage Hand? Mending? Light? Shape Water? Prestidigitation? Minor Illusion?

[Nifft]

IMO, you can't have it both ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a bad spell. Why would my willingness to cast this bad spell be assumed?

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

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

Yes, the spell explicitly does say that it grants knowledge to the target, and since it's a spell which is granting knowledge then presumably it's supernatural knowledge.

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

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

[MoiMagnus]

...

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

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

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

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

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

[Greywander]

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

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

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

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

Is this really any more logical?

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

Yes, the spell explicitly does say that it grants knowledge to the target, and since it's a spell which is granting knowledge then presumably it's supernatural knowledge.

Once the spell ends, there are no ongoing magical effects. Some spells can effect permanent changes (e.g. the healing from Cure Wounds), but these changes are typically mundane in nature. It takes a truly powerful spell to create a permanent supernatural effect without the spell itself being permanent (Animate Dead is one such spell).

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

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

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

Yeah, they realize you used magic on them. The point of contention here is what "you" means. The way I'm interpreting it is not invalid. I'm saying that the spell doesn't tell them, "Some guy named Erendil cast a spell on you," instead it tells them, "That guy you were just talking to cast a spell on you." "That guy" is you, but they don't know who "you" are. You don't think this is still a pretty severe drawback?

It's a bad spell. Why would my willingness to cast this bad spell be assumed?

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

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

[Asisreo1]

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

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

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

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

[Reynaert]

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

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

[LordCdrMilitant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Greywander]

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

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

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

[Nifft]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 5e Friends spell is an unfunded narrative mandate.

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

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

Is this really any more logical?

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

Oh, I guess what you want is:

- You disguise yourself as someone else.

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

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

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

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


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

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

You can't have it both ways.

[Asisreo1]

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

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

It's an important distinction to realize that "Hostile" doesn't mean aggresive or even angry. There is a clear definition of hostile in the DMG.

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

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

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

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

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

[Reynaert]

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

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

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

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

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