| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM_Blake, the last line of your post is the most relevant to what I'm trying to say right now.
Being granted permission to do something doesn't give you the means to perform the action.
Can you counter Charm with Charm? Yup.
Does this mean you get to roll Spellcraft to identify it? Nope.
You gotta figure out some way of identifying it, and if you meet that requirement, you are allowed to counter it without having to use Dispel Magic.
Like I said about daggers...
Daggers can be used to kill dragons, that doesn't mean you just hand them out to kids and send them into the den...
In fact, you'll note that the Counterspell rules tell you to use Spellcraft, and the Spellcraft rules tell you that normal penalties for "distance, poor conditions, and other factors" apply the "same penalties as Perception".What's the perception penalty to see things that don't exist, blake? I am interested in a specific answer to this from you.
In this example, what doesn't exist?
They guy casting the spell exists.
The spell exists.
The wall he hid behind exists.
The core rulebook exists.
The Total Cover rules exist.
The Line of Sight rules exist.
The Perception rules exist.
But, wait, hold on, you do have a valid point. There is something that seems to be missing from the rules.
I cannot find anything that says you cannot see through total cover. Which I find odd. Common sense says you can't. By the lack of explicit rules, the RAW seems to let me see through a wall. That's silly. I am pretty sure any GM will simply resort to English, or common sense, or both, to figure out that you can't see through a wall.
I will resort to that and say I cannot in real life see though ordinary walls, so neither can characters in my game.
Given that, if the caster (who exists) is behind a wall (that exists) casting a spell (that exists) and an observer needs to use Spellcraft to identify it, he's simply unable to do so because he has no line of sight (my rule, seemingly not RAW) to see the spell as it is being cast.
Therefore the "penalty" I would apply for this "other factor" (the lack of line of sight) is absolute: it cannot be done. That's the biggest "penalty" I can apply, and it seems appropriate to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Silent Spell:
You can cast your spells without making any sound.
Benefit: A silent spell can be cast with no verbal components. Spells without verbal components are not affected.
Level Increase: +1 (a silent spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.)
Special: Bard spells cannot be enhanced by this feat.
The bolded line explains away Spellsong, sadly. I don't think it can be used as an argument that all spellcasting has some Spellcraft check visual element if Bards are specifically exempted from using Silent Spell, and got Spellsong instead...
Well except for the feat that makes it clear you can't normally hide casting....
You're absolutely right there's no mechanic that says you can see a spell being cast.
Spellsong? That feat? The one that allows a Bard, and a Bard only to hide casting when they are denied the use of Silent Spell as RAW in said metamagic feat description?
My post was only meant to illustrate that Spellsong is a weak argument as Bard magic is specifically forbidden from using Silent Spell. If we argue on common sense and logic so much, it is very logical to assume that Spellsong is an answer to the fact that Silent Spell isn't allowed to a Bard, which would also bring up the question: if Spellsong replaces Silent Spell, is Silent Spell everyone else's means to hide casting?
There has been a strong reaction within the thread after someone posted about Spellsong, stating that its wording must signify something. In my opinion, all it signifies is that a dev saw that Silent Spell wasn't allowed to a Bard and went... hmm there's an opportunity to make a feat for Bards!
Think about this.
People are suggesting all spells have obvious visual ques (whether it be glow runes, pixie dust, or other stupid stuff).
Spellsong allows you to hide your spell within your performance.
If spells have obvious effects, how could you ever hide a spell within a performance? Unless you suggest bards naturally have pyrotechnics in their performances, any floaty glowy runes will be painfully obvious as magical. So how can you possibly hide it unless it does not possess obvious visual cues beyond V,S,M?
No, cunning caster. You know, the feat I quoted showing that you need it to hide your spell casting? The feat that makes it clear you need it regardless of the visible manifestations of the spell?
What source is Cunning Caster from? I'm not familiar with it and would like to read up on said feat.
No, cunning caster. You know, the feat I quoted showing that you need it to hide your spell casting? The feat that makes it clear you need it regardless of the visible manifestations of the spell?What source is Cunning Caster from? I'm not familiar with it and would like to read up on said feat.
It's from Heroes of the Streets, page 28.
Essentially, you can make a Bluff check (opposed by Perception) to conceal the spellcasting, or to even make people think the obvious effects (such as a scorching ray) didn't come from you.
However, you take a -4 penalty on this check for EACH of the following that the spell requires: focus/divine focus, material component, somatic component, and verbal component. If the spell effect is obviously visible (fireball rather than charm person, for example), you take an additional -4 penalty to the check.
So basically totally useless unless you min/max the crap out of the Bluff skill AND make liberal use of Eschew Materials, Silent Spell, and Still Spell.
I guess the developers thought it was THAT powerful. It's also unfairly slanted towards psychic casters who can ignore nearly all of those penalties.