|
I have a wayang oracle with the deaf curse. His spells have no verbal components.
I cast a spell while hidden.
My understanding is that spellcraft is not possible, since spellcraft requires that you clearly see the caster.
Since my spells have no verbal components I don't see anything in the rules that says casting automatically breaks stealth.
If the spell requires an attack roll, it will break stealth, but if I am making a ranged spell attack at least 10 feet away from the target I can make a Stealth check at -20 as a move action to remain hidden. Is this correct?
What about spells that require saves, but no attack rolls? Does it matter if the spell has a somatic component or not? It doesn't seem like it should since they can't see me making the gestures.
Almost all spells require line of sight/effect. If they make their save, they know somebody cast at them. Don't know official rules on this- I might give half the sniping penalty to remain hidden, but only with respect to the target, with silent/still reducing penalties further. Hopefully somebody has a better answer.
Spells do require line of effect or line of sight, depending.
Aiming a Spell
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.
If a ray spell has a duration, it's the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.
If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.
Spread: Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection. The effect can extend around corners and into areas that you can't see. Figure distance by actual distance traveled, taking into account turns the spell effect takes. When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them. As with movement, do not trace diagonals across corners. You must designate the point of origin for such an effect, but you need not have line of effect (see below) to all portions of the effect.
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.
A burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation spell affects only an area, creature, or object to which it has line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst's center point, a cone-shaped burst's starting point, a cylinder's circle, or an emanation's point of origin).
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.
So, in order to use stealth you must have cover or concealment. Often, these break either line of sight or line of effect to a target preventing you from casting at them. Invisibility can help to remove this issue, but you will need to use greater invisibility because casting a spell that includes an enemy in the effect will break normal invisibility.
A parapeted balcony, with 1ft arrow slits, seems like the perfect thing to hide behind and aim spells through.
Sure, but that isn't exactly something that is mobile that you can carry around with you to each fight.
It would be hard for them to write a rule to cover this. A silent spell doesn't require verbal components - but that doesn't necessarily mean the spell is silent. Casting Sonic Scream without a verbal component is possible - but that doesn't mean it's not going to break stealth.
Claxon got to the point of it.
Spells you cast AT an enemy require you to see the enemy. That means he sees you. There is no "facing" in this game so you cannot simply hide behind him and expect to not be seen. The rule is, if you see him, he sees you. The Perception DC to see you is ZERO.
If you try to use Stealth, then you must not be in plain sight, per the Stealth rules. If you are not in plain sight, then neither is your enemy (usually) so you cannot cast spells at him.
You could use invisibility or darkness, perhaps, so that you can see him but he cannot see you, which would let you Stealth, but frankly, the rules still allow perception checks to find you and having no verbal component does not have a game rule attached to it that negates perception checks or negates spellcraft checks.
As for the sniping thing, that applies to attacks, not to spellcasting, so you'll need a generous GM to allow it, but I suppose it should be possible if given that generosity.
Claxon got to the point of it.
Spells you cast AT an enemy require you to see the enemy. That means he sees you. There is no "facing" in this game so you cannot simply hide behind him and expect to not be seen. The rule is, if you see him, he sees you. The Perception DC to see you is ZERO.
If you try to use Stealth, then you must not be in plain sight, per the Stealth rules. If you are not in plain sight, then neither is your enemy (usually) so you cannot cast spells at him.
You could use invisibility or darkness, perhaps, so that you can see him but he cannot see you, which would let you Stealth, but frankly, the rules still allow perception checks to find you and having no verbal component does not have a game rule attached to it that negates perception checks or negates spellcraft checks.
As for the sniping thing, that applies to attacks, not to spellcasting, so you'll need a generous GM to allow it, but I suppose it should be possible if given that generosity.
I was thinking the same thing initially, but:
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
It doesn't specify weapon attack, so it appears to work with spells. Even if it wasn't intended, which the intent is questionable. However, you would have to make a ranged attack roll for it qualify. So casting fireball would break the stealth automatically, while casting scorching ray would give you a chance to stay hidden. Though, once it exceeded more than one ray you would not be able to use sniping anymore. Worth noting is that you can reduce your caster level when casting to not have more than one ray if you really wanted to.
Spells due require line of effect or line of sight, depending...Sure, but just because something doesn't have line of sight to you doesn't mean you don't have line of sight to it.
Actually it kind of does. The thing is you can have something grant you concealment, which enables you to make a stealth check to avoid being seen.
Example being a bush, it obscures but does not completely block sight. You are in the bush looking out and don't take penalties, but can hide in it. However, those looking for you must now beat your stealth score, but they can see you if they succeed.
Only cover automatically prevents you from being seen, but will also prevent you from seeing them.
Actually it kind of does. The thing is you can have something grant you concealment, which enables you to make a stealth check to avoid being seen.Example being a bush, it obscures but does not completely block sight. You are in the bush looking out and don't take penalties, but can hide in it. However, those looking for you must now beat your stealth score, but they can see you if they succeed.
Only cover automatically prevents you from being seen, but will also prevent you from seeing them.
True. And what this means, ultimately, is that you may be able to see them, but just because there's a line of sight, that doesn't mean they see you. That's the point of stealth, after all, to not be seen when you are otherwise in a position where you might be seen.
So, yes, I don't see any problem with casting from a stealthy position. And I would impose the sniping rule penalty for staying hidden after casting a spell on someone. It's not an attack roll, but it is clearly an "attack" in the sense that it is casting a spell on a presumably unwilling target. If that is considered an attack for the invisibility spell, I'm quite content with considering it an attack for using the sniping rule as well. It fits the same general principle - attacking someone draws attention and gives the target a chance to spot their assailant.
The rule is, if you see him, he sees you.There is no such rule.
Actually there is.
We start with a given: Everybody sees everything unless there is a reason not to. Admittedly, this is not explicitly stated, but it is obvious. Just like in real life, your PC can see everything around him that is in plain sight; that's what plain sight means.
In order to NOT see something, it must be out of sight. Hidden. There are 3 ways to be hidden:
1. Have TOTAL cover between you and your enemy. He can't see you and you can't see him, per the rules. This makes it impossible to attack him with any spells, per the spellcasting rules, but you could cast spells on yourself, or cast summon spells, etc.
2. Have TOTAL Concealment. This means your opponent cannot see you. If he can see you (for example, you're hiding in a completely dark room so you have Total Concealment but your opponent has Darkvision so he sees you anyways), then you are not hidden. If he cannot see you, then you are hidden. If you have some way to see him, then you can cast spells on him. If you cannot see him (e.g. you don't have Darkvision) then you cannot cast spells on him.
3. Use Stealth.
The rule you're looking for is:
Being Observed
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
If you cannot use stealth, then you are visible. In plain sight. Everybody can and will see you. Period. End of story. That's the rule.
Otherwise ambushes would be impossible.
Ambushes are possible because the ambusher gets a situation that lets them attempt stealth. They do that through cover or concealment or even total concealment that they can see out of. Then they attempt a stealth check. Then they spring their ambush.
You can do that too. But when you cast your spell, you MUST have LOS/LOE to your target per the spellcasting rules, so that means no Total Cover and you can only have Total Concealment if you can see out of it (Greater Invisibility is a good choice). Otherwise you simply have Cover or Concealment and your opponent CAN and WILL see you, exactly the same as if you had Cover or Concealment and fired a bow at the enemy without Sniping.
Simply put, when you're attacking him, you're not hiding anymore. You're in plain sight. He sees you. It doesn't matter if it's a bow or a spell.
Only cover automatically prevents you from being seen, but will also prevent you from seeing them.
Actually you need Total Cover.
Cover exists when you cannot draw ONE (or more) line from your square to your taget's square but you still CAN draw at least one line which means you can see each other.
Total Cover exists when you CANNOT draw any lines at all, meaning you cannot see each other.
Sorry, I know you need total cover but I didn't specify.
Only cover automatically prevents you from being seen, but will also prevent you from seeing them.Actually you need Total Cover.
Cover exists when you cannot draw ONE (or more) line from your square to your taget's square but you still CAN draw at least one line which means you can see each other.
Total Cover exists when you CANNOT draw any lines at all, meaning you cannot see each other.
When you target with a ranged weapon, don't you choose a corner of the square you are in and draw lines from there?
OOOOOOOO
OXCOOOOB
OOCOOOOO
If C was a wall that was providing full cover, O is an open square, X is your square, and B is the bad guy, can't you choose the upper right corner of your square and draw your lines of sight to B so there is no cover to him? Isn't this "peaking around cover"?
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover. If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
B doesn't have total cover to X's ranged attack, but X does have total cover from B.
Canthin, unless I'm misreading your pictogram, they both have total from one another. Any corner of X's square has to pass through the cover squares to get to any corner of B's square.
Canthin, unless I'm misreading your pictogram, they both have total from one another. Any corner of X's square has to pass through the cover squares to get to any corner of B's square.
It doesn't look great as X's and O's but on a battle mat it looked right. I might not have recreated it correctly though. I think the lines were drawn successfully because the cover didn't take up the whole square.
I'm not sure it is possible for TOTAL cover only from one side, but since COVER one way and no cover from the other (if B was one square higher) is definitely possible, it could be possible.
I'm not sure it is possible for TOTAL cover only from one side, but since COVER one way and no cover from the other (if B was one square higher) is definitely possible, it could be possible.
If you're "peeking around" cover or otherwise hoping to make an attack, you have to be exposing something. And that would make this more of an improved cover situation rather than total cover.
Canthin, unless I'm misreading your pictogram, they both have total from one another. Any corner of X's square has to pass through the cover squares to get to any corner of B's square.It doesn't look great as X's and O's but on a battle mat it looked right. I might not have recreated it correctly though. I think the lines were drawn successfully because the cover didn't take up the whole square.
I'm not sure it is possible for TOTAL cover only from one side, but since COVER one way and no cover from the other (if B was one square higher) is definitely possible, it could be possible.
It's better to treat cover as either filling the whole square, or not there at all. I realize the grid and everything is an abstraction, so it's a bit weird. But mechanically it's much easier to treat it that way. So either the whole square causes cover, or none of it does.
Burst spells only require line-of-sight to the centre of the burst, not to everyone caught in the blast. So that's an option, if you roughly know where the enemy is.
It's better to treat cover as either filling the whole square, or not there at all. I realize the grid and everything is an abstraction, so it's a bit weird. But mechanically it's much easier to treat it that way. So either the whole square causes cover, or none of it does.
If it doesn't fill the whole square, it's Cover, not Total Cover. If it does fill the whole square (and it's also tall enough), then it's Total Cover. Both ways. In order to "peek around" such Total Cover, it would mean physically moving into the next square which, in that diagram, means no Cover of any kind for either combatant.