| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a request for rules clarification.
As I understand it, by RAW, if you aren't under Stealth and are in line of sight, a person can and will see you cast a spell. They may not know what spell it is (Spellcraft), but they will know you're casting a spell. Even all the metamagic feats won't hide this--note that a quickened spell with no components still provokes an attack of opportunity if not combat-cast.
This interpretation of RAW, one that seems quite valid, breaks or weakens a wide variety of non-combat spells, especially many of those of the enchantment or illusion schools. Some are affected more than others. Others are nearly unworkable. You can't charm a person (unless completely Stealthed) and expect them to not call the guard or come after you personally when the spell wears off--they will no longer be friendly, and they will remember that you cast a spell right before they became strangely friendly. Trying to cast suggestion on a guard, by RAW, should be nearly impossible without being Stealthed, as no suggestion from you is going to seem reasonable right after they just watched you ensorcel them; thus, the spell will fail with no saving throw.
This is not about RAW.
Maybe there should be some house-rule mechanic for surreptitious casting, but I'm not sure how to go about it. Bluff? Disguise? Sleight of Hand? Stealth, but a different use of it that doesn't have the same restrictions (restrictions that are quite reasonable for the current uses of the skill)?
Should it be something anybody can do, or should they need a feat or class feature for it?
This thread is about you, the GMs and the players. How do you handle it as a GM when one of your PCs wants to cast clandestinely, or when one of your NPCs wants to pull one over on a PC? How does your GM handles it when you, as a player, attempt to do something like this? I'm interested in how others have approached the problem--whether in accordance with or ignoring RAW--and it could be a useful discussion for other GMs and players that have wondered about the same issue.
(Again, this is not about RAW. We could start a thread about that in the Rules forum, but it's been done before and it seems to leave a lot of people dissatisfied.)
Spells cast as swift actions don't provoke, btw.
The bard feat Spellsong is great for this. Pump a Perform skill, and they need to beat an opposed check to even notice you are casting a spell.
|
We usually say that the spellcaster has to wiggle his fingers and whisper/murmur some words. So if the party face is talking to someone and the spellcaster is in the back of the group, they can usually get away with it; same if they're casting in the open but no one is watching them specifically. However, if they're the one doing the talking, or are engaged in combat with someone, no dice.
If you use Still Spell and Silent Spell (or I think there's a Gnome-specific feat/metamagic that does it), then you can do it even if you're the center of attention.
3.5's Cityscape had Deceptive Spell, a +1 metamagic feat which allowed you to disguise your spells as coming from a source other than you.
Good stuff so far.
Cheapy (re: swift): Noted; I'll clarify that in the post.
Edit: Or I won't; looks like I waited too long.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
A couple things were brought up in my spell guide discussion that is related to this.
So as I see it, the question here is how to handle surreptitious casting.
Here is what the spell component descriptions say followed by how I interpret them.
"A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice."
It is clear and a no brainier that you need to speak a verbal component, but I just don't see anything that says you have to speak loudly, or even in a normal tone. It says "you must be able" which doesn't mean you have to use a strong voice, just have the ability to use one (Okay, even I admit that is a stretch, but it does demonstrate the abstract nature of the language used.) Strong doesn't mean loud either. According to Merriam-Webster is has 16 meanings, and none of them have the word "loud" in them. In this context it could mean, "Forceful, cogent," or "not mild or weak: extreme, intense."
My father has a strong, calm, and quiet voice when he is angry. You have to be close to him to hear what he is saying (which makes the experience scary, especially as a young child,) but there is no mistaking what he is saying, and every word is clear.
"A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component."
I know basic American Sign Language (ASL) and the signs are only large, wide, and fast if you yelling. While it is clear that, yes, someone is signing, not all signs are recognizable as language to someone who doesn't know ASL. With that thought, without any visual cues like flashing lights, would an observer even recognize the hand signals as spell casting? I think that question can only be answered for individual cases.
However, the phrase above does not say anything about doing the signs in a visible place. It only says that the signs have to be measured and precise movements of the hand. Nothing about arm waving, body posture, or stance, just hand gestures. I can think of no reason that someone wouldn't be able to do the somatic component from within a cloak of from behind a barrier.
There are components that could be more obvious, like material or a focus component that is held in the hand. Some of those cannot be easily hidden.
However, the one phrase related to this topic that seems to be the most importand and yet ignored is the following:
"Usually you don't need to worry about components, but when you can't use a component for some reason or when a material or focus component is expensive, then the components are important."
So how do I handle surreptitious spellcasting? I follow the above phrase. I don't worry about components. I may call for a stealth check if someone is hiding and casting a spell, but if they are out in the open and just don't want to be noticed casting a spell I allow it. I might, if the situation was special, call for someone to make a perception check to spot or hear who cast the spell. In that case, I take the distance into account (+1 for each 10 feet) and add 10 (Hear a whisper is DC 15, so this seems reasonable to me.) For NPCs, I mostly follow the rule of taking 10 and adding 1. If there is a special NPC, I roll seprately for him.
But like I said, that is only with special situations. I mostly just ignore components until someone is bound, gagged, or completely gearless.
One last thought, if the vocalization only needs to be strong (i.e. clear and cognet,) and the hand signs need only be precise, how could someone tell the spellcaster from the man on the opposite side of the street talking to his friend with animated hand movements? Sure, there may suddenly be flashy lights, but it seems to me that as the rules are written there really isn't anything that strongly allows casual observers to say with certainly who casted a spell.
Edit: Of course in combat, no bets are off. Unless you are actively using stealth, everyone knows you are casting a spell and that you were the source of the fireball or healing.
A clever spellcaster could pass off verbal components as a comment or conversation in a foreign language with a bluff check. 2-4 seconds of speaking to cast a standard action spell could defiantly reasonably masquerade as a foreign phrase in conversation. Of course YMMV based on what you think verbal components sound like.
I think that the somatic components are way harder to disguise. It all depends on what you and your DM think that somatic components look like. I imagine them to look something like tai-chi or at the very least motions of more than your hands or fingers. (they involve the whole body, hence somatic rather than manual components, also why armor can screw them up). Even in front of someone with no spellcraft skill, and even from across the street it is completely obvious what you are doing.
This is what I always have done. It allows a spellcaster to try to get away with it, but requires them to do some pre-planning by stilling their spells at least. Stilled and silenced spells as well as spell-like abilities are easier to get away with obviously, you just have to make a bluff check to look nonchalant while doing it.
Any argument that you can whisper the verbal components is cheese ;-)
Any argument that you can whisper the verbal components is cheese ;-)
With respect, I disagree.
There is such a thing as a strong whisper.
In any case, I allow for "stealth casting" when using Silent and Still Spell since (1) it's quite a hefty investment with little else to gain and (2) the rules are quite clear that you need to be able to see and hear the casting of a spell in order to be able to properly identify it with Spellcraft, i.e., the Perception penalties to the check.
If there are no visible or aural components to the spell, I rule (and would argue) that it cannot be identified.
As to somatic components to spells like "suggestion", I always imagine it like those Obi-Wan used when suggesting to the Trooper that "these aren't the droids you're looking for".
As to visual effect, it depends on how your GM has defined the visual aspect of magic in his campaign. I don't believe the authors want to lock the GM into a particular style.
In mine, if you cast your Magic Missile with Silent Spell and Still Spell, even though you didn't have to speak or move a muscle, there is still some visual effect. The magic missiles themselves appear as SOMEthing. Exactly what, I work out with the individual mage. One particularly insane gnomish mage's MMs looked like small winged skulls with burning eyes that flew to the target. Another's looked like little blue orbs. Another's was a visible air distortion (kinda like heat shimmer) in a flying chevron shape.
Scorching ray is similar. Even silent and stilled, there's still a line of fire that leaps from the casters hand to the target. I usually imagine General Kala from Flash Gordon.
The OP is correct in that it's hard to imagine charm or suggestion working properly if arcane symbols float in the air while it's being cast or tenuous purple tendrils caress the target's temples when it's cast.
As to somatic components to spells like "suggestion", I always imagine it like those Obi-Wan used when suggesting to the Trooper that "these aren't the droids you're looking for".
As to visual effect, it depends on how your GM has defined the visual aspect of magic in his campaign. I don't believe the authors want to lock the GM into a particular style.
In mine, if you cast your Magic Missile with Silent Spell and Still Spell, even though you didn't have to speak or move a muscle, there is still some visual effect. The magic missiles themselves appear as SOMEthing. Exactly what, I work out with the individual mage. One particularly insane gnomish mage's MMs looked like small winged skulls with burning eyes that flew to the target. Another's looked like little blue orbs. Another's was a visible air distortion (kinda like heat shimmer) in a flying chevron shape.
Scorching ray is similar. Even silent and stilled, there's still a line of fire that leaps from the casters hand to the target. I usually imagine General Kala from Flash Gordon.
The OP is correct in that it's hard to imagine charm or suggestion working properly if arcane symbols float in the air while it's being cast or tenuous purple tendrils caress the target's temples when it's cast.
I think the argument of stealth casting is often made in regards to spells that don't have obvious manifestations, e.g., the charm and suggestion spells that you mentioned.
Things such as magic missile and lightning bolt would be obvious regardless of what the caster does with his own components. A silenced stilled suggestion spell, on the other hand, would (at wort) look like a moment of intense concentration (not enough to be identified as having cast a spell necessarily, but enough to provoke).
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I think that the somatic components are way harder to disguise. It all depends on what you and your DM think that somatic components look like. I imagine them to look something like tai-chi or at the very least motions of more than your hands or fingers. (they involve the whole body, hence somatic rather than manual components, also why armor can screw them up). Even in front of someone with no spellcraft skill, and even from across the street it is completely obvious what you are doing.
I disagree, but you can find out why in my post above. More specifically, the part that points out what the rules say a somatic component is.
I do find it strange that you could cast spells with somatic components with one hand tied to you back according the description, but if you are wearing armor then there is a percentage chance that you could lose the spell.
Arcane spell failure on armor is there to be a balancing tool, and because it is one of the oldest traditions of the game. Yes, the first sentence of "Arcane Spell Failure Chance" says that armor messes with the gestures of somatic components, but I don't pull from that that somatic components are full body movements. Try doing ASL in armor, or in restrictive circumstances, and you will find certain sign not easy to complete. More specifically, the ones that involve arm movements that are subtle.
It also begs the question: If I use a still spell, can I ignore arcane spell failure?
