Recent Posts
I made recent ruling in my campaign for when trying to cast a spell from a hidden position in combat. I decided that if a spell has a verbal component, the caster gets a –2 circumstance modifier to their hide check because of the additional auditory cues they provide potential targets. (Note – I do not want to bog down combat with additional listen checks, hence just a modifier on the single spot roll)
Do you think this sounds reasonable?
This decision impacts on a player’s Arcane Trickster character, and he has expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling. He points out that this isn’t mentioned in the rules anywhere, and seems to him to be an arbitrary decision aimed at curtailing his core class tactics.
I, however, think it’s a reasonable interpretation of circumstances that only minimally curtails his chance of sneak attack in most situations. To me, it highlights how someone with a Silent Metamagic feat could and should have some advantage in this regard.
I’m keen for people’s thoughts.
Thanks in advance.
Ghost
Skeld
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Battles Case Subscriber)
I made recent ruling in my campaign for when trying to cast a spell from a hidden position in combat. I decided that if a spell has a verbal component, the caster gets a –2 circumstance modifier to their hide check because of the additional auditory cues they provide potential targets. (Note – I do not want to bog down combat with additional listen checks, hence just a modifier on the single spot roll)
Do you think this sounds reasonable?
This decision impacts on a player’s Arcane Trickster character, and he has expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling. He points out that this isn’t mentioned in the rules anywhere, and seems to him to be an arbitrary decision aimed at curtailing his core class tactics.
I, however, think it’s a reasonable interpretation of circumstances that only minimally curtails his chance of sneak attack in most situations. To me, it highlights how someone with a Silent Metamagic feat could and should have some advantage in this regard.
I’m keen for people’s thoughts.
Thanks in advance.
Ghost
If you have the "Rules Compendium" check out page 117. It mentions spellcasting using Sleight of Hand check versus a spot check, even with the verbal component. Its a straight check, no mods for being heard....
I would have to agree... the rules compendium trick would be a good bone to throw him, but explain that in normal circumstances he can not hide and cast a spell.
I think the closest analogy in the rules would be firing a ranged weapon and then making a check to re-hide. Basically you can't actually be hiding while you take the action and must make a check with a significant minus to go back to hiding before anyone noticed (-10 I believe). And that isn't even taking into account the fact that he is both talking and waving his hands around...
I think the rules compendium trick and an opportunity for him to reshuffle some skill points if necessary will make the most sense in the game. Keeps him having fun with out having to sacrifice rules.
Sean Mahoney
Remember that listen checks suffer a -10 due the sounds of battle already. That makes listening for a guy you can't see casting a spell pretty unimportant. Also remember that it could take an active spot and listen with a move action to find him. At my table, you make reflexive spot/listen in combat at an additinoal -5, b/c it is passive (for a net of -15 in battle).
Sniping is actually -20 after the shot.
-c
I would have to agree... the rules compendium trick would be a good bone to throw him, but explain that in normal circumstances he can not hide and cast a spell.
I think the closest analogy in the rules would be firing a ranged weapon and then making a check to re-hide. Basically you can't actually be hiding while you take the action and must make a check with a significant minus to go back to hiding before anyone noticed (-10 I believe). And that isn't even taking into account the fact that he is both talking and waving his hands around...
I think the rules compendium trick and an opportunity for him to reshuffle some skill points if necessary will make the most sense in the game. Keeps him having fun with out having to sacrifice rules.
Sean Mahoney
The sniping rules seem to cover what happens if you try to hide in the bushes and take out a guard without being seen, and would cover a spelcaster trying to do the same.
The -10 for battle commotion is an augment to the listen DC for hearing a battle (ie. battles are easy to hear, rather than battles block out sound) and so not relevant.
I would rule that this is more a hide check than a listen check unless the spellcaster was invisible. If the spotter is distracted (such as being involved in combat) he gets -5 on his spot check (and -1 for every 10 feet of distance).
Hiding is arguably a form of non-magical invisibility, so I'd let the caster make an opposed hide check. If the check succeeds he can cast without being perceived (so his opponent is flatfooted, etc.) but just like an invisible character who attacks the hide/invisibility ends after the attack.
Perhaps you could simulate Improved Invisibility by saying that characters who failed to spot by ten or more cannot perceive the caster even after the spell. Every attempt to cast thereafter would provoke a new opportunity to spot.
Oh dear, I now realise I definitely wasn’t specific enough with my original post.
What I meant to ask was, that if character was trying to attack from a hidden position in order to sneak attack with a weapon-like spell, would the opposed spot/hide checks - to determine if the target was flat footed - be modified adversely for a verbalising spell caster.
I wasn’t at all talking about remaining hidden AFTER casting the spell.
I most sincerely apologise to everyone who kindly posted for causing this confusion. I should have been more expansive with my initial question.
And if I may again politely inquire, how would you play THIS situation at your game table?
By the way, I don't have a copy of the "Rules Compendium" yet. Does it talk about opposed hide/spot checks in combat at all?
I would rule that this is more a hide check than a listen check unless the spellcaster was invisible. If the spotter is distracted (such as being involved in combat) he gets -5 on his spot check (and -1 for every 10 feet of distance).
Hiding is arguably a form of non-magical invisibility, so I'd let the caster make an opposed hide check. If the check succeeds he can cast without being perceived (so his opponent is flatfooted, etc.) but just like an invisible character who attacks the hide/invisibility ends after the attack.
Hi Geraint,
Happily, you seem to have got the intent of my question despite my poor wording. (o:
We had already been playing an opposed spot/hide check for his attempted sneak attacks when hidden. The -5 for distraction during a battle is a good point, and I will probably apply this to a targets spot check in most battles from now on. Do you think, however, that a spell casting attack would somewhat draw attention to themselves, and modify the same opposed check in some manner?
Hmmm, here's a thought, it might just now negate the targets 'distraction' modifier.
Cheers
Ghost
Oh dear, I now realise I definitely wasn’t specific enough with my original post.
What I meant to ask was, that if character was trying to attack from a hidden position in order to sneak attack with a weapon-like spell, would the opposed spot/hide checks - to determine if the target was flat footed - be modified adversely for a verbalising spell caster.
I wasn’t at all talking about remaining hidden AFTER casting the spell.
I most sincerely apologise to everyone who kindly posted for causing this confusion. I should have been more expansive with my initial question.
How would you play this situation at your game table?
Ghost
Inferring from invisibility; I would say that if the character has succesfully hidden then he can sneak attack with a weapon-like spell that has no verbal component. That's a good base to work from, so the issue is sound.
Perhaps the point to consider is whether you think a sneak attack is not perceived until it hits, or whether the an opponent becomes aware of it, but too late to do anything about it.
Casting the spell takes less than 6 seconds (a standard action is only half a round, although longer than a move action, so say 3.5 seconds?). But does it take 4 seconds to bring up a shield, or dive to one side? probably not.
If you came to me with this I would houserule thusly;
Target gets a listen check with all necessary modifiers (-5 if distracted, -1 for every ten feet, etc.) against your move silently check. This would test your ability to perform the spell at a whisper, or adpat the cadence so that it is masked by the other sounds in the area.
If you co-ordinated with your party to mask your noise (they all agreed to scream, shout and sing until you struck) then they could give your foe a -20 to his listen check.
Target gets a listen check with all necessary modifiers (-5 if distracted, -1 for every ten feet, etc.) against your move silently check. This would test your ability to perform the spell at a whisper, or adpat the cadence so that it is masked by the other sounds in the area.
If you co-ordinated with your party to mask your noise (they all agreed to scream, shout and sing until you struck) then they could give your foe a -20 to his listen check.
I was trying to avoid adding listen checks in the calculation, simply to help make my combats run quicker, but I appreciate this may be the best RAW solution... perhaps I just need to bite that bullet.
In the magic section of PHB it says casting a spell with a verbal component requires that "you must be able to speak in a strong voice". So I set the DC for 'hearing a spell being cast' the same as the 'People talking' entry under the Listen skill (DC 0).
The party screaming and hollering idea is a kind of clever tactic, but I wonder if this is somewhat covered in the 'distractions' modifier anyway, as battle noises might be almost as loud. Thanks for all these ideas though!
It seems to me obvious that trying to remain unnoticed while making gestures so precise that armor interfers with them and speaking in a loud voice is harder than remaining unnoticed while being silent and still.
At my table +2 or -2 just doesn't get argued. Only if I go beyond the quick-and-easy mnodifiers do I hear *any* abjections. within +/-2, if you don't agree just assume there were other factors in the big, wide world we're pretending is real that I forgot to mention. Sometimes, people don't know every single thing that can affect their chance of success.
So the situation is such that the Arcane Trickster has managed to get into a position to sneak attack. He is then choosing to execute the sneak attack with a ranged spell? And the question is whether or not the targets actually notice him and allow the sneak attack to succeed?
The DC to hear the spellcast would be 0, as previously said. Assuming the Arcane Trickster is following normal rules, this means he must be within 30 feet. That brings the Listen DC to a whopping 3. 8 if the target is distracted.
They're going to hear him, plain and simple. It's merely a matter of whether he can get the attack off before they can react, and then a separate issue of whether he can Hide again afterwards. The latter is easy- use the rules for sniping (immediately make another Hide check at -20).
The first issue can be resolved using surprise rounds. The way I see it, the Arcane Trickster either immediately gains a surprise round, no check necessary, and thus can execute the sneak attack successfully with no rolls required. Initiative is then rolled, and if the Arcane Trickster wins that as well, he can do whatever he wants (another sneak attack, attempt hiding while being observed, etc.).
Or, you could rule that initiative is rolled the moment the Arcane Trickster stops hiding (i.e., when he begins casting). In this case, it would be best to let the targets roll their listen checks against that tremendous DC 3 (or 8, or whatever the Arcane Trickster manages to jack it up to). If even one party involved in this encounter fails, proceed as a surprise round, with every alerted party (including the Trickster) rolling and acting in initiative order normally (remember, only one action allowed in a surprise round). If everyone is alerted (very likely with the presented DCs), proceed as a normal round.
Should the Arcane Trickster loose initiative, treat the spellcasting as if it actually hasn't started yet. That way, a spell which usually takes an action to cast and doesn't provoke AoO except from a threatened square isn't taking so long as to allow enemies to interrupt it and take all kinds of actions they normally couldn't take. Explain it as some sort of preliminary action on the caster's part blew his cover (or just tell him this stops the mechanics from getting nonsensical, and it's in his favor anyway). Wen his turn actually comes up, he can execute the attack (though it may not be a sneak attack any longer due to the targets not being flat-footed) or perform some other action, as he sees fit.
That's how I'd rule it. Just to throw the player a bone and circumvent all the Listen and initiative checks and potentially making a simple maneuver into a big ordeal for myself and all the players, I'd probably opt for the first option myself (automatic surprise round).
The first issue can be resolved using surprise rounds.
No not really. The character in question is usually trying to execute this tactic once combat has already started, so surprise a round isn't something I can do mid-combat.
He frequently moves out of sight around a corner, or ducks under a table or such-like, then moves quietly back while trying to hide (all this in combat, and sometimes all achieved in one round, so kudos to him for managing that) then he tries to execute a sneak attack with a spell to a target within 30'.
Me, all I want to do is work out the mods and roll a spot check and get on with the combat. However, I think some of the things he is trying to do are harder to achieve than HE thinks they are, hence all the discussion and arguments over how I’ve modified the opposed hide/spot check roll. I guess that's why I’ve resorted to posting here.
At my table +2 or -2 just doesn't get argued. Only if I go beyond the quick-and-easy modifiers do I hear *any* abjections. within +/-2, if you don't agree just assume there were other factors in the big, wide world we're pretending is real that I forgot to mention. Sometimes, people don't know every single thing that can affect their chance of success.
Yes, I am surprised with all the arguments I'm getting into with this.
Another one I use is a +4 spot modifier to the target if they have already been sneak attacked by this player from the same location in a previous round (as happens when he sometimes moves down a side corridor and back in the same round, and attacks a target over and over this way).
These all seem reasonable to me, but to him, it's like it's ruined his character concept.
At my table +2 or -2 just doesn't get argued. Only if I go beyond the quick-and-easy modifiers do I hear *any* abjections. within +/-2, if you don't agree just assume there were other factors in the big, wide world we're pretending is real that I forgot to mention. Sometimes, people don't know every single thing that can affect their chance of success.Yes, I am surprised with all the arguments I'm getting into with this.
Another one I use is a +4 spot modifier to the target if they have already been sneak attacked by this player from the same location in a previous round (as happens when he sometimes moves down a side corridor and back in the same round, and attacks a target over and over this way).
These all seem reasonable to me, but to him, it's like it's ruined his character concept.
Perhaps he should just bite the bullet and take the Silent Spell Feat?
IS the spell he is using got a casting time of 1 standard action? If so then why would the opponent get any kind of check before the spell goes off? You can fire an arrow from hiding without a problem. D&D does not overly complicate things by making the two any different. A standard action is a standard action. The Arcane Trickster takes a round or more to Hide from an opponent and then he casts a weapon-like spell and gets his sneak attack damage on top of that. His hide is now blown and he has to do it all over again. Unless he has like Improved Feint (I think thats the one) he is still only getting his sneak attack every other round at best. While I agree that a spell caster combining sneakattack with a weapon like spell it's not terrible compared to a theif with multiple attacks and a decent weapon who actually flanks in melee so he gets sneak attack on all his attacks (granted the spell caster does better at the lower levels). Now if he was hidden and cast a quickened spell followed by another spell only the quickened spell would get the sneak attack damage.
IS the spell he is using got a casting time of 1 standard action? If so then why would the opponent get any kind of check before the spell goes off? You can fire an arrow from hiding without a problem.
If you said "Hello over there, I'm just about to fire an arrow at you." just before you fired your arrow I imagine the DM might remove the sneak attack.
The issue is verbal components.
IS the spell he is using got a casting time of 1 standard action? If so then why would the opponent get any kind of check before the spell goes off? You can fire an arrow from hiding without a problem.If you said "Hello over there, I'm just about to fire an arrow at you." just before you fired your arrow I imagine the DM might remove the sneak attack.
The issue is verbal components.
I agree that the verbal component ruins your Hide, I'm just saying that in the terms of D&D's chain of events the verbal component takes the same amount of time as the bow string draw and the arrow hitting you. You make it sound like the spell caster is reciting Shakespear when he casts a spell. I just feel the verbal component takes up so little time that is doesn't ruin your hide until after the spell hits. Just my opioion though. I can't get to the RAW from work to see what it actually says.
Perhaps you could take two mechanics and combine them; the concentration rules for casting a spell while distracted and the Rules Compendium ruling on hiding your spellcasting by muttering the verbal components and hiding the somantic gestures using the sleight of hand (soh) skill.
It takes a little skill to cast a spell without being noticed. If you are being observed, roll soh vs spot. If you are unobserved (hiding, invisible, etc) then you roll soh vs dc 10 + spell level. Otherwise you mangled the words and lose the spell without any other effect.
I agree that the verbal component ruins your Hide, I'm just saying that in the terms of D&D's chain of events the verbal component takes the same amount of time as the bow string draw and the arrow hitting you. You make it sound like the spell caster is reciting Shakespear when he casts a spell. I just feel the verbal component takes up so little time that is doesn't ruin your hide until after the spell hits. Just my opioion though. I can't get to the RAW from work to see what it actually says.IS the spell he is using got a casting time of 1 standard action? If so then why would the opponent get any kind of check before the spell goes off? You can fire an arrow from hiding without a problem.If you said "Hello over there, I'm just about to fire an arrow at you." just before you fired your arrow I imagine the DM might remove the sneak attack.
The issue is verbal components.
I agree with this. Casting the spell is a standard action. The amount of time it takes can safely be assumed to be so small as to not let an unaware opponent (as they must be to get a sneak attack) to effectively react, just as if you had shot an arrow at them. The act destroys whatever attempt at stealth the spellcaster was attempting, but does not prevent a spell-based sneak attack in and of istelf. Otherwise, ever actually pulling off a spell-based sneak attack as an Arcane Trickster would be nearly impossible; everyone would always hear or see the casting first and then react.
Further, I still think this issue could be resolved with surprise rounds, though I admit I may be stretching the issue. Take a look on page 24 of the DMG. It covers newcomers to a combat that is already underway. It seems to have been designed with NPCs in mind, but it's still fairly straitforward. The character would effectively have to "leave" the combat and come back in. Adjudicating this is where the process is likely to get more complicated. Also, as a tactical maneuver it's pretty powerful, perhaps too much. Then again, it should be very difficult and time consuming to pull off actually leaving the combat and coming back into it.
I can understand objections to this based on "cheesiness," but I'm just pointing out the option.
Then again, what the Arcane Trickster is trying to do may actually be pretty simple without all that, even in combat. The only question is has he successfully hidden himself from his target? If yes, he gets the sneak attack; if no, then he doesn't. No Spot or Listen or any other checks necessary. That should have all been taken care of before he actually attempted the sneak attack (probably as he moved into position), just as it would be if the sneak attack were non-magical.
Reading your clarification I would definately rule differently than my post above. I would completely concure that the PC who has already snuck into a position to do a sneak attack WOULD get the sneak attack with a weapon-like spell (likely a ray).
Yes, you can make all sorts of rationalizations about how long it takes to ready a defense if you hear something, but the rules don't really work that way for anything else so you are opening a huge can of worms if you want to start applying real world rationalization to the combats. The rules indicate that if you attack from a sneaking postion you can qualify for a sneak attack and a weapon-like spell qualifies just fine.
If it helps any there is nothing indicating how many words are involved in a spell being cast with verbal components, so you can say this is a single arcane syllable releasing the power of the prepared spell... no time to react.
Giving the target a SECOND Spot/Listen check after the character already made one to get into position is indeed double dipping in favor of the enemy.
Sean Mahoney
Yes, I am surprised with all the arguments I'm getting into with this.
I think you are getting such a jumbled mess of postings, arguments and confusion because everyone is chiming in with house rules and other variations when the rules state quite explicitly (as stated by a couple of above posts) what the terms for this action are. To refute one post above, your character can state he is whispering the verbal component, which brings the DC to hear him to a DC 15 plus modifiers for combat noise, distrations, etc. The 'strong voice' rule is to prevent players from arguing that they can gurgle out a spell when they are being choked, etc.
REGARDLESS, a successful listen check doesn't negate a sneak attack, does it? Just because you hear someone lurking in the shadows across a room murmuring arcane syllables doesn't mean you can successfully dodge his spell when the energy comes blasting forth from said shadows...
Many of you might not believe this, but my group doesn't have a SINGLE house rule. And we've been playing D&D together since 2nd edition. We play straight up, by the book. And we don't confuse reality with rules. No, they don't all apply to real life, but it is a game and the rules provide the structure for that alternate reality. You can't confuse the two. Which is why you shouldn't give your player a -4 penalty from attacking from the same spot. Yes, it does make sense to a real conception of things, but the rules don't address it. The player, when making his character (one can assume) followed the rules and arrives with a certain expectation of action. To deny a player that makes it less fun for all involved if it isn't breaking the game. Circumstancial calls are one thing, though. You do have that right as a DM and that really can't be taken away from you...don't want to imply that...
B.
To refute one post above, your character can state he is whispering the verbal component, which brings the DC to hear him to a DC 15 plus modifiers for combat noise, distrations, etc. The 'strong voice' rule is to prevent players from arguing that they can gurgle out a spell when they are being choked, etc.
I disagree. a Strong voice implies something more then even talking softly. Its certainly not a strong voice if you are subvocalizing into your cloak or some such. This goes along with the rest of the conceit for magic in Dungeons and Dragons which contends that magic is loud and flashy. So the Wizard can't whisper Abra Cadabra into his Cloak but must clearly and loudly announce Abra Cadabra to fulfill the verbal component of casting a spell.
REGARDLESS, a successful listen check doesn't negate a sneak attack, does it? Just because you hear someone lurking in the shadows across a room murmuring arcane syllables doesn't mean you can successfully dodge his spell when the energy comes blasting forth from said shadows...
To use the 'sneak attack from hidden' version of the sneak attack you must beat your opponents spot or listen check. This of course is not required if you sneak attack from flanking.
I'd probably just leave it at a straight opposed move silently/hide versus spot/listen check the first time the player did this in combat and then go with a +2 circumstance penalty if the player does the same thing again and the opposition is reasonably intelligent.
All that said I feel for the OP. The real problem is that the rules are not really adequate in this particular area. Essentially they state that one may make a sneak attack from hidden but then don't really go into the mechanics of that. The mechanics tell us how to hide but don't really address how to remain hidden or when one comes out of hidden.
Thus one ends up with all these different interpretations. Does one cease to be hidden if ones spell casting is heard? In this case the listen check would be a static DC to 'hear talking'? Or is it some kind of extension of 'hiding'? Which is the opposed check.
if 'hiding' is free and part of movement how long do you need to remain hidden for one to use a sneak attack? Is it legal to walk around the corner, announce to the DM that your character is hiding, then walk back out (easily accomplished in the same move action) and attack from hidden? It seems unreasonable but there is not really anything in the rules that covers, mechanically, what conditions one must fulfill to sneak attack from hidden and what kind of situations would or would not negate ones hidden status.
REGARDLESS, a successful listen check doesn't negate a sneak attack, does it? Just because you hear someone lurking in the shadows across a room murmuring arcane syllables doesn't mean you can successfully dodge his spell when the energy comes blasting forth from said shadows...
I think the key here lies in the combat rules on invisibility and concealment. If you figure that there's no better Hide bonus than invisibility, the rules for that spell do clearly state that while you can take basic actions while invisible/hidden, you can still be perceived through sound, and any attacks you make on foes negate the invisibility.
Your attack made while invisible/hidden does go through, but you are no longer hidden, at least until your next action, presuming you want to hide/become invisible again. Similarly, when attacking from concealment, your opponent has a reduced or even eliminated chance of accurately locating you to strike back or defend itself.
So I'd say your Arcane Trickster can make the sneak spell attack as normal, but loses his successful Hide status.
I don't know. Does a successful Listen check negate the opportunity for a sneak attack? You certainly can't just use Hide to sneak up on someone- you have to Move Silently as well. Nor can you just Move Silently, you have to be Hiding. Otherwise, they are aware of you. If you were to fail a Hide check but succeed a Move Silently, the observers would see you but not hear you. Nevertheless, no sneak attack. If the rolls (not roles) were reversed, however, the target would hear you and not see you. One could argue this is enough to get a sneak attack since they still don't know where you are and where you are attacking from, as it is with invisibility. But one could also determine that the target would be able to determine your location well enough to be put on guard and watch for possible threats, thus no longer being flat-footed and negating the possibility for a sneak attack. In this case, invisibility could be ruled to be a separate situation because they never have a chance to react to the sight of you. If their Listen check foiled your mundane stealth, however, they would be alerted enough to react when you emerged for the attack, thus negating sneak attacks (note that I intend this as description following mechanics, no mechanics following description).
I really don't know what the official rule is here. If it comes down to a house ruling, the DM should make the ruling with his attitude towards his players in mind. The PCs are the ones who must meet the criteria to execute a sneak attack; the onus is upon them. Requiring them to make two successful rolls thus increases their difficulty, while requiring only one decreases it.
I would personally rule in favor of two rules, as I feel the alternative underpowers Move Silently significantly. I would actually be more in favor of making on Stealth skill, opposed by Senses or Alterness or some such, than I would be of obviating the need for Move Silently checks.