The Mystical World of Spell Casting: A Beginner's Guide

I am the spell caster. I possess the power to create magic and bring about change in this world. With my incantations and rituals, I can shape destiny and alter reality. It is through my connection with the mystical forces that I am able to tap into this extraordinary power. As a spell caster, I understand the responsibility that comes with wielding such abilities. I must heed the laws of nature and use my powers for the greater good.

No, not every person is a full-on Spell-caster. People who produce “spin” for a living, swaying the opinion of the public, for example, embody the Spell-caster, for example. Cult leaders are quintessential Spell-casters as are charismatic political leaders who promise the public that they can create a whole new world out of thin air for them. Con-artists are masterful Spell-casters, casting spells that eclipse a person’s common sense. And though most people are not thoroughbred Spell-casters, everyone has what it takes to cast a spell – sometimes knowingly and sometimes unconsciously. We are all more than capable of falling under a spell – that’s for sure. So, it is in your best interest that you sharpen your “archetypal wits” and learn how to recognize when a spell has been released into your psychic airwaves – and by whom. Or conversely, when you’ve begun a bit of spell-casting of your own.

However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds, you must intercede with your deity requiring you to expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings. Cult leaders are quintessential Spell-casters as are charismatic political leaders who promise the public that they can create a whole new world out of thin air for them.

I must heed the laws of nature and use my powers for the greater good. I must never abuse the trust placed upon me by those who seek my guidance and assistance. My journey as a spell caster began with a deep fascination for the unknown.

Does a caster know whether a spell with no save worked?

The PRD makes it clear how spells with saving throws work:

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

But suppose for the sake of argument a cleric casts Atonement on a fallen paladin, and the paladin doesn't want to be atoned, and has enough of a Bluff that the cleric doesn't know that. Atonement makes it clear that the spell would fail in this case:

The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds.

Would the cleric know that the spell failed?

No, the caster has no way of knowing whether their spell worked or not. Even spells with saving throws only alert the target of the spell effect; the caster is still in the dark.

In the specific case of Atonement on a Paladin, you could check by following up with a Detect Good spell. Since atonement would restore a paladin's aura of good, this effect would be very detectable. It's also very hard to fake an aligned aura in this way.

No, the caster has no way of knowing whether their spell worked or not. Even spells with saving throws only alert the target of the spell effect; the caster is still in the dark.

This isn't always true:

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

For targeted spells with a saving throw, the caster knows whether or not the target succeeded at their saving throw. If there is no saving throw, the only "failure" conditions are things like spell resistance, invalid targeting, or conditions specific to said spell. The atonement case mentioned above would be an example of the last type, a special failure condition built into the spell description. In this case, the rules do not define whether the caster knows that the spell succeeded; ergo, I'd be cautious whichever side of this situation I was on.

At the moment, it's a story-driven NPC interaction where we would prefer the caster to remain unaware, but as soon as the question arose all the GMs around the table said, "Oh, we need to make a decision on that one before we make it canon," and thought we'd come here for feedback on it before we made a final decision.

I believe the best interpretation of the rules is that if a spell fails (i.e. the effect doesn't come into existence) then you are aware of that. By far the most common reason for a spell failing is if a targeted spell is saved against.

I don't believe it is ever spelled out, and there are several possible failure reasons for spells that this sort of thing should apply to:

spell failed due to invalid target (charm person on a outsider)
spell failed due to spell resistance
spell failed due to unwillingness

Obviously for many effects you know it failed. For more subtle ones the rules are silent except in regards to saves. To me it seems weird that if my charm person doesn't work I know that it hasn't worked if they saved, but I don't know that it failed if it was some other reason.

(not knowing why it failed I could understand)

In the specific case of atonement there is no save. For RAW purposes, that would mean the cleric has no way of knowing, since you don't automatically know about other failures.

Also, interestingly, you don't know if a spell was saved against if it's an effect or area spell, such as fireball. but I would assume there would be *some* visual clues.

But back to your case.

I say the cleric doesn't know since there is no saving throw. Bluff away.

Yeah we had a good Thread on this a decade or so ago and the consensus was to use Bluff. Not sure the best way for an Atonement situation but, with so much time and roleplay that those instances typically create, I wouldn't worry about it one way or the other. Though with the text of Atonement as it is -- I'd probably rule the caster knows if it works, 'attuned' with his or her deity.

But we talked quite a bit about Vampires Bluffing that they failed a Will Save against being Turned, and villains Bluffing that they failed a Will Save against Charm and other Compulsions.

As a GM I think Atonement is kind of a big deal. This is an attempt to have the cleric casting the spell ask to have the transgressions of the target cleared and return them to the deities favor.

If the target himself rejects this, I'd have a servant of the deity show up to conduct a brief interview. That being would want to know why.

If the reason was fair, the being would withdraw and hope that the ex-paladin would reconsider at a later date. If the targets reason was lacking, I'd have a mark appear on the target's hand and have the servant announce "The supplicant has rejected grace and has embraced the action that caused his downfall." and now he needs to spend the gold to Atonement in the future. If he insults the deity or refuses to speak I'd have the servant announce the targets excommunication for his betrayal. The betrayal is asking for a priest to perform the atonement ritual with no intention of atoning. The target wasted the efforts and good will of not only the priest, but this servant and the deity they formally served.

If he dares to attack this minor servant, a more powerful servant manifests, and curses the paladin. Maybe not an actual curse, but something simple like stripping the paladin of all items and ejecting them from the temple seems appropriate. Not magically, physically stripping them and bodily throwing them from the temple. Have something like a Solar appear as the backup. Then throw the broken chunks of his gear from the temple.

Charm person on a golem

Spell comes back 404 target not found.

I used Atonement of a paladin as an easy example. The actual situation has nothing to do with paladins.

I'm focused on whether a caster knows whether or not they know a no-save spell failed. The discussion so far has been quite useful.

For Bluff to work may require the target to know what spell he just saved against. If his Bluff against Hideous Laughter is to start dancing I wouldn't consider it successful no matter what his roll and I think the failure to work would be fairly obvious to the caster. Less obvious (Charm for instance) might give the caster a bonus with his Sense Motive vs Bluff. But see below . the above still requires a bit of wait and see to observe what the target's response is. And that will be true imo of any Bluff attempt vs the spell. The portions posted by blahpers and in the OP about the PRD are essentially immediate upon the caster finishing the spell.

Bluff would require time to pass, how much isn't standardized, bolding mine -->

Action: Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate (as determined by the GM on a [b]case-by-case basis[b]).

This also conflicts with the "time" required by Sense Motive which is 'generally takes at least 1 minute'

So it mostly comes down to the DM's judgement. I would, where opposed rolls are considered, err towards uncertainty.

What skill would oppose the bluff check? Perception is the go-to but honestly inappropriate. KS: Arcane? KS: Religion? Spellcraft is when the spell is cast, not when it is in place. If Arcane casters use Arcane, and Divine casters use Religion, what do Psychics use?

I used Atonement of a paladin as an easy example. The actual situation has nothing to do with paladins.

I'm focused on whether a caster knows whether or not they know a no-save spell failed. The discussion so far has been quite useful.

It has a lot to do with the nature of the spell cast. Arcane magics are self contained. They don't touch more than the caster and the target of the spell. Divine magic comes from. something. The more powerful the magic, the more the source of said power will notice what you are doing. Especially for spells that try to influence the favor of a deity. (such as the example) When you are a divine caster, not having any reaction from the deity and his followers for your actions is disappointing. Having something check up on your actions (both approving, and admonishing) gives a deeper level of immersion into feeling like your character is a follower of a god.

That isn't to say that a GM should approve or revoke any divine spell cast against the beliefs of a religion. Give the players agency to make their own decisions. But if someone takes to doing things constantly against the beliefs of their own religion, a servant should show up to lecture them and guide them back to 'the right path'.

The same for Witches. Their patrons probably don't care about most of their actions, but they want something. If a witch starts acting against those wishes, then the Patron should give them 'The Talk'. And if what is going on is a pivotal action then there is a very good chance the Patron would be watching. The connection between a witch and a patron is probably more direct than a cleric and a deity.

While I do like the idea of the divine/deity link, it raises a very interesting question: Can a neutral rogue with a huge UMD successfully cast Atonement on a paladin? Would the rogue know whether or not the spell worked?

EDIT: Sorry. This is getting away from "Rules Questions" and into "Interesting discussions", but I'm afraid I do find the idea rather fascinating, so I'm being a putz.

What skill would oppose the bluff check? Perception is the go-to but honestly inappropriate. KS: Arcane? KS: Religion? Spellcraft is when the spell is cast, not when it is in place. If Arcane casters use Arcane, and Divine casters use Religion, what do Psychics use?

Bluff is most typically opposed by Sense Motive:

Check: Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent's Sense Motive skill.

But to a large degree it doesn't matter, that's beside the point. The point is it's not an immediate feedback typically, at least there are no guidelines for such outside of what was posted by blahpers. Our hypothetical Cleric isn't going to know anything is amiss until clued in by something else which may happen minutes, days or weeks later depending on what's happening with out Paladin. If he has reason to be suspicious then Sense Motive is a perfectly valid skill choice to apply. Detect Magic and or Arcane Sight may both be useful in determining if the spell succeeded depending on the spell in question and Greater Arcane Sight will tell the caster what spells are active on those viewed, but it also a 7th level spell not your every day sort of thing.

Got to run, back later.

I don't remember well, but there might be an ability that says you can fake spell effects (or something of that nature). At the very least it might be possible to use bluff and high DC illusions (or other effects) to fake atonement.

As far as wether a spellcaster knows with no save spells, well I think that it depends on the spell and its description. With a visual spell, the lack of effect on the target could be visible to everyone.

The problem is mental and other hidden effect spells thou. Which just having them work is weird for me.

Most of the effects of Atonement can't be detected. The only reason anyone could use a detect type spell to figure out if the Paladin atoned is because the Paladin should regain his Aura of Good class feature with a successful Atonement.

In effect, you aren't checking for a successful Atonement, you're checking if the Paladin has one of his most obvious abilities.

While I do like the idea of the divine/deity link, it raises a very interesting question: Can a neutral rogue with a huge UMD successfully cast Atonement on a paladin? Would the rogue know whether or not the spell worked?

EDIT: Sorry. This is getting away from "Rules Questions" and into "Interesting discussions", but I'm afraid I do find the idea rather fascinating, so I'm being a putz.

It actually brings up an even stranger question: Can you cast Atonement for followers of a different god? You can't make holy symbols for another deity. Holy Water you produce is based on your channeling ability. Raise Dead and other resurrection magic works fine regardless of the faith of the target. What happens if a cleric of Desna casts Atonement for a Paladin of Iomedae? Does one of Desna's agents go to visit an agent of Iomedae and plead the Paladin's case on their priest's behalf? Or does Desna somehow eliminate the stain on Iomedae's paladin that caused them to fall?

Really, the only thing that would be clear in this situation is the Paladin would have an opportunity to become Chaotic Good thanks to Atonement's last clause. (and forfeit his bid to reclaim his paladin abilities)

Also something to think about. Atonement needs varying amounts of material components depending on the target. Most castings only require a trivial amount of components. However, some castings need 2,500 gp in incense to succeed.

If a Wish is cast, the caster knows how much additional gold/diamonds need to go into the spell. Would spells like Raise Dead or Atonement inform the caster how much they need to contribute to make the spell work? In the case above, if the Paladin plans on refusing, does that come before the spell consumes the additional components? Or does the spell consume all of the components provided and quietly fail without informing the caster why it failed?

What happens if a cleric of Desna casts Atonement for a Paladin of Iomedae? Does one of Desna's agents go to visit an agent of Iomedae and plead the Paladin's case on their priest's behalf? Or does Desna somehow eliminate the stain on Iomedae's paladin that caused them to fall?

Desna is chaotic so she can do whatever she damn well likes. Those snooty Lawful gods can't tell her who she can or can't atone!

If she likes she can also atone the priest of Asmodeus who went all goody-two-shoes (then had a change of heart) so he can go to Hell when he dies.

Most of the effects of Atonement can't be detected. The only reason anyone could use a detect type spell to figure out if the Paladin atoned is because the Paladin should regain his Aura of Good class feature with a successful Atonement.

In effect, you aren't checking for a successful Atonement, you're checking if the Paladin has one of his most obvious abilities.

Yes I agree in the specific and hypothetical case mentioned of Atonement unless there are very specific reasons for the Atonement which might clue the caster in indirectly (such as the ongoing presence of unexplained enchantment(charm or compulsion) magic on the Paladin) Detect Magic might not do the trick. And even if days later the Paladin does something again that might require Atonement the Cleric may not know if the original Atonement failed or the Paladin is just having a really rough week and now needs another Atonement. That's why bottom line there are no hard and fast rules/guidelines the DM is left to do what needs doing.

Further the Cleric might use Augury, Divination, Zone of Truth and/or Commune (etc.) as well to further see if our Paladin is sincere or something more evil is going on and most of that is going to be related to whatever storyline is unfolding involving the Paladin (or Cleric). And yes one (or more) of the Deities servants might show up after all someone is messing with one of HER/HIS Paladins depending on the levels of the parties involved and THEY want to get to the bottom of it.

At the moment, it's a story-driven NPC interaction where we would prefer the caster to remain unaware, but as soon as the question arose all the GMs around the table said, "Oh, we need to make a decision on that one before we make it canon," and thought we'd come here for feedback on it before we made a final decision.

I used Atonement of a paladin as an easy example. The actual situation has nothing to do with paladins.

I'm focused on whether a caster knows whether or not they know a no-save spell failed. The discussion so far has been quite useful.

Given the thread I think its safe to say they are no specific rules for what happens when no save is allowed. I do think saying they know it failed/fizzled without saying why is a perfectly reasonable response in general (and closest to RAW/RAI). How to integrate that into the desire by the OP for the caster to remain in the dark probably requires knowing a bit more about what exactly is the spell/effect the caster used and the circumstances surrounding the casting.

Since someone already mentioned it above, I think it's safe to at least specify that it is an Atonement cast from a scroll with the intent of aligning the target's alignment with the caster's.

According to the spell, this requires a willing target. But if the target wants to appear willing but avoid actually going through with it, it seems that by RAW this is possible.

Since someone already mentioned it above, I think it's safe to at least specify that it is an Atonement cast from a scroll with the intent of aligning the target's alignment with the caster's.

According to the spell, this requires a willing target. But if the target wants to appear willing but avoid actually going through with it, it seems that by RAW this is possible.

By RAW, the deception is possible.

(Though it's not RAW, I'll mention: we run it so that a spellcaster never knows if the effect worked or not without looking for magic. Makes casters trend toward more cautions and/or arrogant sorts - either way, fitting into story tropes a weeeee bit better.)

By inference, I'm honestly not sure how atonement works, exactly, in terms of alignment from an item. Anyway, looking at a couple of things:

This spell removes the burden of misdeeds from the subject. The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds. If the atoning creature committed the evil act unwittingly or under some form of compulsion, atonement operates normally at no cost to you. However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds, you must intercede with your deity (requiring you to expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings). Atonement may be cast for one of several purposes, depending on the version selected.

Reverse Magical Alignment Change: If a creature has had its alignment magically changed, atonement returns its alignment to its original status at no additional cost.

Restore Class: A paladin, or other class, who has lost her class features due to violating the alignment restrictions of her class may have her class features restored by this spell.

Restore Cleric or Druid Spell Powers: A cleric or druid who has lost the ability to cast spells by incurring the anger of her deity may regain that ability by seeking atonement from another cleric of the same deity or another druid. If the transgression was intentional, the casting cleric must expend 2,500 gp in rare incense and offerings for her god's intercession.

If the dude getting atoned committed deeds worthy of atonement willingly (not by compulsion) than it's gonna cost cash. So, that's a thing. (That's only for an actual spellcaster, though - a scroll either already has the stuff imbued into it, or doesn't and fails - this is a possible source of bluffing, later, maybe.)

Originally, I was under the impression that divine scrolls (as the scroll of atonement would naturally be) would be attuned to a specific divinity - the deity of the cleric that created it; but that does not seem to be the case, weirdly, so. yeah, I'd say it's a thing you can go for, by RAW.

Also, interestingly, you don't know if a spell was saved against if it's an effect or area spell, such as fireball. but I would assume there would be *some* visual clues.

I delved into ancient texts and studied the secrets of the universe. I practiced and honed my skills, perfecting the art of spell casting. The magic that flows through me is not something that can be easily explained. It is a force that transcends the physical realm, connecting me to the spiritual plane. It is in this ethereal space where my spells take root and manifest into reality. Each spell I cast is unique, tailored to the individual seeking my help. Whether it be love, success, healing, or protection, I have the ability to bring forth the desired outcome. Through my spells, I can bring love to lonely hearts, prosperity to struggling souls, and healing to those burdened with pain. However, it is important to remember that I am merely a conduit for the magic. I am not an all-powerful being, but rather a vessel through which the forces of the universe flow. I must approach each spell with respect and humility, understanding that the results are not solely in my hands. The path of a spell caster is not an easy one. It requires unwavering dedication, endless patience, and a deep understanding of the intricacies of magic. It is a lifelong journey of discovery and growth. In conclusion, as a spell caster, I hold a profound ability to shape the world around me. Through my connection to the mystical forces, I can bring about change and create magic. However, with this power comes great responsibility. I must use my abilities wisely and always seek to do good. I am the spell caster, and my enchantments have the potential to bring light into the lives of those who believe..

Reviews for "Casting Spells for Protection: Warding Off Negative Energies"

1. John - 1 star - I am extremely disappointed with "I am the spell caster." The storyline was poorly developed and lacked depth. The characters were one-dimensional and lacked any relatability. Furthermore, the writing was amateurish and filled with cliches. I found myself forcing myself to finish the book, hoping it would improve, but it never did. I would not recommend wasting your time on this novel.

2. Sarah - 2 stars - "I am the spell caster" had potential, but it fell flat for me. The concept was interesting, but the execution was lacking. The pacing was off, with moments that dragged on and others that felt rushed. The dialogue was unrealistic and felt forced. Additionally, the ending was unsatisfying and left many loose ends. I was left feeling underwhelmed and wishing I had read something else.

3. Jessica - 1 star - I cannot find any redeeming qualities in "I am the spell caster." The writing was full of grammatical errors and typos, which made it difficult to enjoy the story. The plot was convoluted and confusing, with weak world-building. The protagonist was unlikable, and I struggled to connect with any of the characters. Overall, I found the book unenjoyable and would not recommend it to others.

4. Michael - 2 stars - "I am the spell caster" had potential, but it ultimately fell short. The plot was predictable, and the twists were lackluster. The writing style was inconsistent, and the dialogue felt forced and unnatural. The characters lacked depth, making it difficult to care about their fates. While the concept was intriguing, the execution left much to be desired. I would not recommend this book to anyone looking for a captivating read.

The Dark Arts: Exploring the Shadow Side of Spell Casting