2 questions about the Dawflower Dissident's 'Secret Caster' ability

[ohako]

thanks to QuidEst for helping me with my popsicle shop question from earlier. Xe pointed me here

Paths of Prestige wrote:

Secret Caster (Ex): At 2nd level, a Dawnflower dissident can disguise his spellcasting with a Bluff check (for spells with verbal components), opposed by the observer’s Sense Motive check, and/or a Sleight of Hand check (for spells with somatic components), opposed by the observer’s Perception check. Depending on the situation, the Dawnflower dissident’s Bluff and/ or Sleight of Hand check is modified according to the following table.

Penalty Condition
-0 Spell has a range of personal
-5 During combat
-5 Spell has a range of touch
-10 Spell has a range longer than touch
-Spell level ×2 Spell has a visible, audible, or otherwise observable effect
Automatic failure Spell has an observable effect that clearly emanates from the caster

Casting a spell in this fashion increases its casting time to a full-round action (if normally a standard action or less), or doubles the casting time of spells with a casting time longer than a full-round action. A spell cast in this way does not provoke attacks of opportunity from observers that fail to recognize it for what it is. For spells with both verbal and somatic components, the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity from observers unless they fail both their Sense Motive and Perception checks.

Sorry about the table in there. Anyway...

Here is a quote from Mark Seifter about how spells always have a noticeable element. He quotes Jason Buhlman, and I think the post he's referencing can be found here.

Please excuse me if these questions have been asked before. I couldn't find a reference here in the Rules forum.

Question 1: Do all spells have observable effects (thus always netting the spell level x2 penalty when using Secret Caster)? If they do, do they always emanate from the caster (thus hosing Secret Caster entirely)?

Question 2: Let's assume that the answer to question 1 does not entirely invalidate the use of Secret Caster. A Dawnflower Dissident casts a Silent and Still or psychic charm person. What do they roll to conceal their spell? If there is a penalty to the roll, what is the penalty to?

[ohako]

bumpity-bump?

...I use Secret Caster to cast secret speech...in secret!

[CampinCarl9127]

1) Almost always. While I think this is entirely always, I'm sure there is some obscure spell that doesn't. But any verbal or somantic components makes it observable. The only way it wouldn't is through metamagic spells like still and silence, and even then only certain spells.

2) Ah boy, we may be opening up a can of worms here. My understanding is that since you are casting a spell with only verbal and somantic components but you are casting it still and silent, there is no observable effect. But that's just my interpretation, not supported by RAW anywhere.

[Ughbash]

By my understanding there is no such thing as secret casting. I am guessing magical energies that form as you cast a spell are visible to everyone and anyone with spellcraft has a chance to identify what you are casting. Otherwise there would be no roll to identify a eschewed, silent, stilled spell.

This means everyone recognizes when someone tries to charm you and if you have spellcraft YOU can recognize that they are casting charm person on you if you make the spellcraft roll, even though the sorcerer made no gestures and spoke no words in the casting of the spell.

I don't LIKE it, but it appears to be raw :(

[ohako]

well what the hey. I'll hit the FAQ button on this my own self.

I don't believe that the sources that I've cited actually constitute RAW (that is, 'rules as written'). Unless I miss my guess, there's actually nothing written in the CRB that addresses whether or not a given spell (or all spells) have observable effects. It'd certainly be nice if there was a descriptor for that sort of thing.

I think the fact that using Secret Caster to cast a psychic spell causes a gelatinous cube to fall prone is just a bonus.

[Berti Blackfoot]

I think the x2 for observable effect mean it conjures something, or causes an explosion. It is an EFFECT OF THE SPELL, not refering to the casting of the spell. The x2 means, it is a lot harder to foll a person into thinking "that fireball came out of nowhere".

But burning hands is impossible to hide. It came right from you, and no matter what your bluff score, there is no way people will believe you when you say "but I swear it wasn't me"

I think what Mark Seifter's quote refers to is spellcasting is hard to hide, and is the reason a normal caster cannot bluff or hide their spellcasting in the first place. That is why only a few types of casters have class abilities or feats that will allow them to even try to hide their casting.

I think another question is, assuming I am correct above, does an illusion or glammer spell have an observable effect that increases the cost? Or do those not count because the intended effect is to create a fake observable effect to trick the viewer?

So :
1. no
2. by RAW, a silent, still, no material spell can still be spellcrafted and identified, unfortunately. Basically you still have to concentate, and that concentration is noticeable. In the movies this is often portrayed as the psychic holding a hand to their head and closing their eyes and thinking really hard: It is obvious they are the one making the table move with their mind, but they ARE still and silent. However, a good bluffer can concentrate while smiling with their eyes open pretending to look at flowers. Thus a silent, still spell still needs a bluff check.