Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Concealing Spellcasting


Advice

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What known methods/rules/strategies are out there for concealing one's own spellcasting, not necessarily the effect, but the act of casting itself?


Spellsong.


Any others? I too am interested in this concept for a charm based caster.


Obviously the feats

Flavoring your spell casting to be motions of a dance (at least when in non combat situations that are more like discern lies, detect magic, various illusions, enchantment, and other spells that can be used for trickery(animate rope, unsean servant, Mage hand, etc..) or anything to cause a distraction (like a fire ball placed without collateral damage, which sounds sort of impossible, but anyways...)

Obviously, this wouldn't work against nods with ranks with spell craft.

Really the only way to truly do it while still being seen is the feats

The other way is to be completely invisible or otherwise hidden

If you are only beig heard, but not seen, like when in a nearby room, you could use a bluff check to pretend your drunk or just crazy or something

I play an illusionist in skull and shackles, and eay on I hid my spell casting usi g bluffs, or just knocking them Out with color spray b4 they noticed what happened


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
What known methods/rules/strategies are out there for concealing one's own spellcasting, not necessarily the effect, but the act of casting itself?

What about Illusion of Calm? I'm not entirely sure if it would work for spellcasting, the wording is a bit ambiguous. But it would certainly help, wouldn't it?


Stealth?


The only published rules I know of within the 3.0/3.5 system (don't know if any products out there ever translated them to PF) were for the Dark Sun setting.

Edit: Come to think of it not sure if they got even got translated into 3.0/3.5 they may have only existed prior to then in late 2E.


Illusion of Calm is a great option. Yes, it hides spellcasting (the illusion makes you appear to be standing still even when you are casting, but it's a figment, so they can probably hear you cast even if they can't see it - Silent Spell is your friend).

Stealth won't help if you're speaking the verbal component in a clear and strong voice, or if you need line of sight to your targets, but it might help with Silent Spell and any spellcasting that doesn't need LOS.

For the OP, undetectable spellcasting is, deservedly, difficult to achieve. As everyone seems to keep saying, spellcasters are gods and melee-ers are losers, and there really are extremely few options to let those melee losers smack an orc in the face and remain undetected, so it's even more imperative to not let spellcaster gods blast an orc in the face and remain undetected. The balance issues are already steep enough, widening the gulf would be ill-advised, so consequently, there are not too many options.


Sandman bard gets this as a class feature at level 9.

Sovereign Court

If you take the Deaf curse as an oracle, you get free silent spells. Take Still Spell and your golden. Dark Tapestry gives a lot of great stealth options, too. Make it a Seeker oracle and you've got a rogue with full spellcasting.


No matter what, you provoke an attack of opportunity for casting (without a Concentration check).

Fully hiding casting probably takes Bluff (or Disguise, if you're a wildshaped druid with the feat they all take), Concentration, and spells with no components (metamagic can help with this). Being invisible and silent is a cheap way of pulling that off.


You only provoke attacks of opportunity from people who perceive unas a threat. For example if your casting next to an ally, they don't have to attack you... Unless someone is adept at recognizing offensive magic (or other magic that augments combat ability), there is no reason to attack you

Yes, most common peoe will know that your castinnsome type of spell, but that doesn't mean people have any incentive to take that attack of opportunity

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You essentially need three things.

Still Spell, Silent Spell, and the art of misdirection. In other words, you need to have your target looking at other things besides you.

Building up your bluff and slieght of hand skills wouldn't hurt either.


If a fighter is next to you while casting (and he is your enemy) if he can percieve you in any way he will get an AoO and know you are casting a spell.

Also, while it has been noted as a reasonable house rule, with the rules as written Eschew Materials, Silent Spell, and Still Spell do nothing to increase the DC to identify a spell indicating that there is still something obvious about it. And even if a house rule said it was now disguised sufficiently that it couldn't be identified, the fighter standing next to you still gets his AoO because spell casting provokes.

I've always figured that most spells (even without the spell components) have some sort of visible energy manifestation associated with them, a build of release of arcane energies.


Sorry, i didn't mean to dicuss during combat. I was trying to discuss when you are in a non combat situation, while casting spells that may require subtlety, like casting charm person on a poltically important npc during a feast.

Although it would be preferable to have the still spell and silent spell feats, if for some reason you don't have it, as I think Kimera was discussing, and you cast charm person in the above situation, everyone that happens to be adjacent will probably not take the AoO, even though they are allowed to. However in the situation that such a situation was occurring in a society where all spell casting is illegal, the secret police commander (who happens to be adjacent) at the party might decide to attack, but probably not the random soldier who wasn't expecting such a situation, neither would the random aristocrat

My point is unless someone as a reason to think you mean harm, he would only be interested into why he guy next to him is casting the spell, and wouldn't think to attack him that moment

Sorry if my earlier post was to ambiguous about a given situation.


Okay.

I would assume that unless you're taking pains to conceal a spell, anyone with Spellcraft will know you're casting a spell. They won't know what spell it is without Spellcraft, of course.

In other words, as written, it's virtually impossible to pull off that Charm, unless they let a wizard into a room with a noble without there being a court wizard or cleric to watch over them. (Turning invisible and casting Silent Charm Person/Monster probably would work, although someone will eventually make a Sense Motive check.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kimera757 wrote:

Okay.

I would assume that unless you're taking pains to conceal a spell, anyone with Spellcraft will know you're casting a spell. They won't know what spell it is without Spellcraft, of course.

In other words, as written, it's virtually impossible to pull off that Charm, unless they let a wizard into a room with a noble without there being a court wizard or cleric to watch over them. (Turning invisible and casting Silent Charm Person/Monster probably would work, although someone will eventually make a Sense Motive check.)

That's where the SKILL AT Misdirection is all about. This may require things such as working with a teammate to get someone to look at something besides you. Or you get your target alone, cast that charm person and hope he does not make that save. And if you do succeed in the spell, you get what you need done and scoot before said spell wears off. The thing is, if you're not bashing your way through a dungeon, you have to work with intelligence and finesse. And you need exit strategies for when things go south.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

well, anything that affects your range or line of effect can be used to hide your spell casting;
Spectral Hand 2 (mid term duration, just line of sight so resort to mirrors)
Eldritch Conduit 2 / Grtr 6 (short to mid term, AoE starts from a prepared target)
Project Image 7 (short term classic)

Or create a double(targeting the "fake" you);
Skinsend 2 (long term. a bit creepy' but you "could" cast out of another's backpack, you'll need a Cracked Pearly White Spindle ioun stone)(edit)
Magic Jar 5 (long term classic)

Hide behind an illusion/facade;
Hide behind cover...
Illusion of Calm 1 (short term duration)
Silent Image 1/Minor Image 2/Major Image 3 (wall in front of another as caster must concentrate)
Vocal Alteration 1 (verbal component - whispers, laughter, baby talk)
Darkness 2 (somewhat nerfed, but good at distances)
Invisibility 2/Invis Sph 3/etc (trying not to be seen)
Codespeak 2 (verbal component)
Plant cover and Greensight 2 (though the plants may block LoE)
Pyrotechnics 2 (cover both ways)
Ablative Sphere 3 (it's job)
Blacklight 3 (short term deeper darkness you can see in but not through)
Displacement 3 (short term 50% miss chance)
Blink 3 (short term blink to etheral plane)
spotters/Clairvoyance 3/Arcane Eye 4 & Obscuring Mist/Fog Cloud/etc
Tiny Hut 3 (transparent from within, opaque from without)
Illusionary Wall 4
Invis Grtr 4
Globe Invuln Lsr 4 in a Silence 3
Aura of the Unremarkable 4 (they just don't care)
Hallucinatory Terrain 4 (dense forest or hedge maze)
others...


This is a little obscure, but the Dawnflower Dissident prestige class in Paths of Prestige gets something called "Secret Caster (Ex)" which allows the caster to use an opposed Bluff check to hide that they're casting spells. Not sure if this is what you're looking for but it seems to match the description you gave.


Snow_Tiger wrote:
Sorry, i didn't mean to dicuss during combat. I was trying to discuss when you are in a non combat situation, while casting spells that may require subtlety, like casting charm person on a poltically important npc during a feast.

That would get you killed if I were the GM.

Snow_Tiger wrote:
Although it would be preferable to have the still spell and silent spell feats, if for some reason you don't have it, as I think Kimera was discussing, and you cast charm person in the above situation, everyone that happens to be adjacent will probably not take the AoO, even though they are allowed to.

Magic is very very deadly. Or at least, it can be. Compare it to guns in the real world; they are also very very deadly.

What would happen if you went to the White House and, during a feast, you whipped out a gun? Even if you didn't point it at anyone, just holding it in your hand - the S.S. would take you down immediately, probably kill you, and sort it out later, just to make sure you don't have time to pull the trigger.

Same thing in a world with magic - if you whip out a spell, even if you're not pointing it anyone, the guards around you will take you down, possibly kill you, and sort it out later, just to make sure you don't have time to finish casting that spell.

(yeah, yeah, timing, surprise rounds, AoO, etc., maybe they won't be able to stop you, but they'll try, and they'll keep trying even after you finish the spell until they've eliminated the threat - you - to make sure there are no more problems).

Snow_Tiger wrote:
However in the situation that such a situation was occurring in a society where all spell casting is illegal, the secret police commander (who happens to be adjacent) at the party might decide to attack, but probably not the random soldier who wasn't expecting such a situation, neither would the random aristocrat

I disagree. Compare this to drawing a gun at the White House, in the USA where it is perfectly legal to have and even carry a gun, compared to drawing a gun at Kim Jong-un's palace in North Korea where guns are illegal. You're dead in both places.

Yes, the non-combat aristocrats probably aren't armed, aren't ready to make an AoO, and might not even if they could, but those guards can and will, and then they'll roll initiative and keep taking you down, until you ARE down.

Snow_Tiger wrote:
My point is unless someone as a reason to think you mean harm, he would only be interested into why he guy next to him is casting the spell, and wouldn't think to attack him that moment

Maybe, if you're casting a spell out on the street.

Not so much in a political feast with important politicians around. Also not so much in any tense situation, such as, if a guard patrol walks up and says "halt, show me your papers" and you start casting a Cure Light Wounds on your friend, those guards will know you're casting but not know what, and they're very likely to overreact. Very likely.

As far as I'm concerned, you better get permission to cast a spell near any armed person in any and all combat situations or you're likely to get gorked for your trouble.

At the very least, very very least, starting to cast a spell in a tense situation is like being pulled over by the cops and while they're questioning you, you suddenly reach inside your jacket - most cops won't draw and shoot you just for that, but you'll definitely get their hands on their guns and maybe even drawn if you look at all aggressive while you do it.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Trait Magical Flair (+2DC to identify one school w/spellcraft)

Feat Secret Signs (+2DC to identify spells w/somatic, somatic only Perception Chk vs your Sleight of Hand to notice spellcasting)

Feat Spell Bluff (+4DC to counterspell using spellcraft, +2 to identify others) it reads like it should be +4DC Spellcraft to identify your spells.

(not)
Feat False Casting (kinda the opposite... lol)


Kimera757 wrote:
I would assume that unless you're taking pains to conceal a spell, anyone with Spellcraft will know you're casting a spell. They won't know what spell it is without Spellcraft, of course.

You don't need spellcraft to know if someone is casting a spell. Pathfinder rules allow 0-INT zombie, insect, or ooze to take an AoO against a spellcaster if he casts in their threat range (without casting defensively) - those 0-INT monsters don't know it's a spell, but they see the chance to strike and take it instinctively.

Someone more intelligent, say, like a goblin, will always know you're casting a spell. He's seen his shaman cast spells, he knows what the funny words, hand waving, and dead crickets are all about. He won't know which spell you're casting, but he'll know you are casting.

Someone more intelligent than that, like, typical commoners in a civilizaed setting are exposed to spells constantly. Their priest casts them at weekly sermons, traveling magicians use magic, at least cantrips, to impress commoners at carnivals, etc.

Everyone knows magic when they see it.

Kimera757 wrote:
In other words, as written, it's virtually impossible to pull off that Charm, unless they let a wizard into a room with a noble without there being a court wizard or cleric to watch over them. (Turning invisible and casting Silent Charm Person/Monster probably would work, although someone will eventually make a Sense Motive check.)

As I said in my last post, those guards would take down the caster as fast as possible. A court wizard present would have no advantage other than the ability to use Spellcraft to figure out which spell the doomed idiot at the feast tried to cast before he was killed.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:

You don't need spellcraft to know if someone is casting a spell...

Everyone knows magic when they see it.

ummm, I think when creatures hear someone speaking weird (draconic) and gesturing that they assume it is spellcasting. Safe bet.

Creatures need spellcraft if they are to identify a spell or know 100% that it is spellcasting before it completes. That's why it's a skill.

I'm not sure it fair to say that "in game" they are offered an attack or sense it, it's more a game mechanic. Spell Like Abilities(SLA) have no somatic, verbal, or material components yet they provoke. Wands have spell completion and they do not provoke.

I do agree that in a fantasy RPG casting a spell (or tossing a chamber pot) is an offensive act and may have undesired repercussions.

I don't disagree with your scenarios... lots of things can happen.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

One of the interesting ways to take a "time out" for a wizard is to Earth Glide via Elemental Body 1 Spell Level 4th.
You can cast spells on yourself while earth gliding. This effectively hides your castings. Presumably you could ready a spell for when you emerge.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber
Kimera757 wrote:

No matter what, you provoke an attack of opportunity for casting (without a Concentration check).

Fully hiding casting probably takes Bluff (or Disguise, if you're a wildshaped druid with the feat they all take), Concentration, and spells with no components (metamagic can help with this). Being invisible and silent is a cheap way of pulling that off.

Actually, Illusion of calm quite specifically says you do not take an attack of opportunity for casting.

Illusion of Calm wrote:

When casting this spell, you create an illusory double that takes the same space of you. That double makes it look like you are standing still, even when you are not. While under the effects of this spell, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you cast a spell, make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, or move out of your first square during a move action. It does not hide ranged attacks made with any type of projectile weapon.

When a creature hits you with an attack of any type, it gains a saving throw to disbelieve the figment. On a successful saving throw, it successfully disbelieves and the spell's effect ends for that creature.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The idea that absolutely everyone and everything knows magic on sight is silly.

You don't get an attack of opportunity because you just somehow know they are casting a spell. You get an attack of opportunity because the person in front of you dropped their guard to concentrate on the action.

That's why it provokes, even with things like Silent Spell and Still spell.


Don't mean to be sarcastic, but I think the majority of spells cast are Mage hand and prestigitation, purify food and drink, detect poison, etc in a feast.

I agree with you that in a high security area, maybe only a couple people will be licensed to use these spells.

Any ways ill shut my mouth now

Shadow Lodge

Blake, if you would have guards jump me for casting Detect Poison on my glass, I think an argument would erupt.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

The idea that absolutely everyone and everything knows magic on sight is silly.

They really don't have to "know" it's magic. They just have to recognize the fact that it's anything but normal speech and come to their own conclusions.


Ninjaxenomorph wrote:
Blake, if you would have guards jump me for casting Detect Poison on my glass, I think an argument would erupt.

That's one reason to have a court wizard present. To keep guests from being decapitated for using cantrips to flavor their food!

More seriously, there would probably be a no casting rule in effect. It's to protect the king and his guests. (The court mage is not restricted. It's better to hold feasts at your castle than at another noble's castle.)

Is anyone familiar with Google Glass? It's not as secretive as you might think - it's more annoyingly creepy than anything else - but you might watch someone who is wearing it around you. But imagine if Google Glass could, sometimes, be used to control people's minds, like Charm Person? That's magic in a fantasy setting. At the very least using it would be frowned upon in a lot of circumstances.

Sovereign Court

*bump*

Does anyone else know any ways to hide spellcasting? I'm thinking about making an Urban Druid, spymaster type. Being able to cast spells without drawing attention would be very useful.


Ascalaphus wrote:

*bump*

Does anyone else know any ways to hide spellcasting? I'm thinking about making an Urban Druid, spymaster type. Being able to cast spells without drawing attention would be very useful.

Take a level of oracle, pick up the deaf curse. All your spells become auto-silent.

Then all you have to worry about is being seen. Having someone recognize or identify a spell as it is cast has the same sorts of penalties as perception checks... so, invisibility, cloud/smoke, darkness, concealment/cover in general all keep people from detecting the source of the magics being tossed about.


Spellcraft wrote:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

Silent + Still don't work. Paizo has said there are other things going on that all is people to know you're casting a spell.

As long as they can't see you however! it doesn't matter if they can hear you it not. They can't identify the spell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, well Paizo is dumb!

lol. jk.

In all seriousness, they can be pretty inconsistent. There is nothing in the rules indicating that you can identify a silence/stilled spell and, in fact, there are things in the rules (like the ranged penalty to Spellcraft checks) that indicate quite the opposite. It is Paizo's OPINION that one should be able to identify silenced/stilled spells even though their are no components to be identified, but that's not RAW as they have not created any errata for such a thing.


There's nothing in the rules saying you can't identify a silent/stilled spell either though.

The Exchange

I really hate the idea of hiding spell casting, I prefer glowing runes (like "every" image of spell casting), moving shadows, arcane sounds, and darkness and small gusts of wind when any spell is cast.

If a PC really wanted to do it I would make a high level spell that conceals all these displays of spell casting in the area, allowing them to hide the mundane parts on their own. Probably at least spell level 6.

oddly, I hate the displays with psionic powers. Mind farts and rainbows and goo are silly to me, and have not been associated with psychic powers in tv/movies/books I have seen or read.

I did like how Fading Suns dealt with it, by giving their magical characters stigmata, but you could come up with it. One character had a halo appear when using magic and an other had his eyes look like jump gates.

Your fun may vary :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GeneticDrift wrote:
I really hate the idea of hiding spell casting, I prefer glowing runes (like "every" image of spell casting), moving shadows, arcane sounds, and darkness and small gusts of wind when any spell is cast.

As you say, fun may vary.

As you find rainbows and goo silly, so do I find the notion of glowing runes, moving shadows, arcane sounds and the like quite silly when trying to cast spells like detect thoughts, charm person, illusions, etc.

For flashier, more obvious spells, such as fireballs and summons and the like, I find such descriptions perfectly fine.

However, I would like to add that the rules also don't make any mention of such "additional displays" outside of the individual spell descriptions, so RAW, there are none.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:
I really hate the idea of hiding spell casting, I prefer glowing runes (like "every" image of spell casting), moving shadows, arcane sounds, and darkness and small gusts of wind when any spell is cast.

As you say, fun may vary.

As you find rainbows and goo silly, so do I find the notion of glowing runes, moving shadows, arcane sounds and the like quite silly when trying to cast spells like detect thoughts, charm person, illusions, etc.

For flashier, more obvious spells, such as fireballs and summons and the like, I find such descriptions perfectly fine.

However, I would like to add that the rules also don't make any mention of such "additional displays" outside of the individual spell descriptions, so RAW, there are none.

If you succeed at the Charm Person spell, the fact that the person might know that you cast it is irrelevant. It's like Han Pritcher under the control of the Mule, the fact that he was perfectly aware of what the Mule had done to him, did not stop him from being a fanaticaly loyal lieutenant, even after the Mule's death.


I recall of a prestige class that had a feature called Spell Bluff or Concealed Casting or something of that nature. Can't find it now, but I recall it let you make a bluff check to see if you could get away with casting a spell. From what I recall, certain spell effects Gabe penalties to this check, however.


I'm fairly certain there's also a Trickster mythic Path Ability for this.

EDIT: yep, Subtle Magic

Sovereign Court

It's fine that magic is normally obvious. But for spells like Charm Person and Suggestion, I want there to be a way to hide the casting. So that you can try to publicly Charm people.

It's okay if it has a hefty price. If Silent+Still+Eschew did the trick, that'd be fine. But it appears that's not sufficient, since you can somehow still identify those spells with Spellcraft.


Ravingdork wrote:

Yeah, well Paizo is dumb!

lol. jk.

In all seriousness, they can be pretty inconsistent. There is nothing in the rules indicating that you can identify a silence/stilled spell and, in fact, there are things in the rules (like the ranged penalty to Spellcraft checks) that indicate quite the opposite. It is Paizo's OPINION that one should be able to identify silenced/stilled spells even though their are no components to be identified, but that's not RAW as they have not created any errata for such a thing.

In 3.5 you could not IIRC. In PF the devs allow it. It makes no sense to me either so I normally let my players vote or see if they expect it to be done.

Scarab Sages

Forgive me if this has already been covered, but:

Use Ventriloquism to make it sound like the verbal component is coming from across the room. This doesn't get rid of the sound of spell-casting, but it does provide social cover.

Consider you want to cast charm person in a crowded bar. Go to the toilet, cast ventriloquism (lasts 1 min/level), then cast your charm person, and have it sound like your voice is coming from under the table of that crowd of rowdy construction workers over on the far side of the bar. Between the distance penalty (-1/10' distance) AND the muffling from the fact that it's coming from under the table AND the noise, you should get a pretty good chance of "hiding" the somatic component to the spell.

Otherwise you can just make it sound like it's coming from someone else, or even an area of space that might be mistaken for an invisible spell caster.

It's a trick I used against my party as a GM, and they wasted 2-3 rounds before they figured out where the guy was hiding (and he was hiding, NOT invisible, so see invisible didn't work).

And all it costs is a level 1 spell.


Pick your spells carefully; these have no verbal components:

Darkness B2, C2, S/W2
Gaseous Form B3, S/W3
Glibness B3
Mislead B5, S/W6
Suggestion B2, S/W3

And these have no somatic components:

Animate Plants D7
Blasphemy C7
Blindness / Deafness B2, C3, S/W2
Blur B2, S/W2
Charm Monster B3, S/W4
Command C1
Command Plants D4, R3
Contact Other Plane S/W5
Dictum C7
Dimension Door B4, S/W4
Displacement B3, S/W3
Feather Fall B1, S/W1
Flare B0, D0, S/W0
Geas, Lesser B3, S/W4
Hold Portal S/W1
Holy Word C7
Hypnotic Pattern B2 (requires somatic for S/W2)
Irresistible Dance B6, S/W8
Knock S/W2
Light B0, C0, D0, S/W0
Mage's Disjunction S/W9
Phase Door S/W7
Power Word Blind S/W7
Power Word Kill S/W9
Power Word Stun S/W8
Prismatic Sphere S/W9
Shout B4, S/W4
Teleport S/W5
Time Stop S/W9
Tongues B2, C4, S/W3
True Strike S/W1
Ventriloquism B1, S/W1
Wail of the Banshee S/W9
Word of Recall C6, D8
Word of Chaos C7

And of course, if you use the Silent Spell metamagic feat along with a spell with no somatic component (or the Still Spell metamagic feat along with a spell with no verbal component), I can't see any reason why your casting should be detectable at all (or, for that matter, why you couldn't cast when bound and gagged - that ability has to be useful insurance).

(The double-spell-level boost of Still and Silent, and needing to use two feats up, makes that approach quite expensive).


I guess it depends a lot on how you and your group view casting.

In my group casting includes glowing runes around you,possible glowing eyes etc... Theese won't be gone by using still and silent feats.

Silent, and invisibility works... Though that may not be cool at an important meeting...

Casting from a hidden position is also an option... (perhaps using spectral hand)

Sovereign Court

@sgriobhadair: while I think it makes sense that a spell without components wouldn't draw attention, I'm not certain. Because you can still identify it with spellcraft, without any RAW penalty. And if you can identify it, then there must be something noticeable.

There's some sort of idea moving through the forums that spellcasting also includes some glowing energies in and the air and all that, to explain this phenomenon. I think some of the devs have supported that idea, conversationally. RAW though, it's just really unclear.

And a non-ambiguous way to do it is what I'm really looking for.


Ascalaphus wrote:
@sgriobhadair: while I think it makes sense that a spell without components wouldn't draw attention, I'm not certain. Because you can still identify it with spellcraft, without any RAW penalty. And if you can identify it, then there must be something noticeable.

Presumably a magical aura, that the magically attuned can pick up on. Those with no magical training (no spellcraft skill levels) would notice nothing.

Quote:
There's some sort of idea moving through the forums that spellcasting also includes some glowing energies in and the air and all that, to explain this phenomenon.

Again, I don't think everyone would see this, if it did exist - because then there little need for the Detect Magic spell. The skill description for Spellcraft requires that you can see the spell being cast:

Quote:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

The Perception check modifiers are:

Distances to the Source: +1 / 10 feet
Unfavorable conditions: +2
Terrible conditions: +5
Creature making the check is distracted: +5
Creature or object is invisible: +20

I'm not sure how to rule on this one. With no V or S components, is the SpellCraft check for an invisible object? If they failed the check by enough, should they not realise a spell was cast at all? It does seem a lot of this must still come down to GM interpretation. (Personally, I think that magic users and magical creatures nearby would always know when a spell was cast near them - even more so if it was a high level spell - just because of the 'disturbances in the magical field'. But I'm also aware others have different opinions on this).

Could we 'add-on' the Magic Aura spell to the casting to hide that a spell was being cast?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Magical auras aren't normally detectable unless (1) you are using divination, or (2) the spell says the area/aura/effect is observable.

Just about anything else is a house rule.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Magical auras aren't normally detectable unless (1) you are using divination, or (2) the spell says the area/aura/effect is observable.

Just about anything else is a house rule.

...That would include a ruling that Still and Silent metamagic feats have any impact on spell identification, since the feats themselves are silent on the issue.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like the alternative mentioned above: Treat the caster as though invisible if none of the components are available to identify, essentially adding +20 to the DC to identify that a spell is being cast (and which one).

I think this would be an acceptable alternative if my GM, for whatever reason, felt that a three feat/two-level-spell-slot increase/casting-time-increase was not enough to balance "sneaky spellcasting." *rolls eyes*

LazarX wrote:
...That would include a ruling that Still and Silent metamagic feats have any impact on spell identification, since the feats themselves are silent on the issue.

What ruling? The Spellcraft skill, by referencing the Perception skill's penalties, makes it clear: If there is nothing to perceive, then it cannot be identified. That's also common real-world logic. It is absolutely impossible to identify anything you cannot perceive, and are unaware of.

However, if your video-gamer GM wants to say that there are floating runes or whatever, that may change things, but such spell manifestations are not supported anywhere in RAW.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Concealing Spellcasting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.