| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
STEP 1: Concealing the casting FX
In order to conceal the (unwritten-in-the-rules) magical emanations of spellcasting you need the following:
- Cunning Caster (feat)
- Deceitful (feat)
- Bluff (skill)
This allows you to make a Bluff check opposed by all nearby observers' Perception checks in order to conceal the "magical floating...things" that appear when you cast--you know, those things that aren't mentioned anywhere in the rules, but the developers insist are a real thing.
There's a catch, however. You take a cumulative -4 penalty to said Bluff check for each of the following:
- Focus/Divine Focus
- Material Component
- Spell possesses an obvious effect (such as fireball or summon monster)
- Somatic Component
- Verbal Component
That means, you have to absolutely max out your Bluff skill to have any hope at all. Max ranks, Deceitful (which you already have since its a prerequisite), Skill Focus, racial bonuses, high Charisma, circlet of persuasion, a viper familiar, etc.
You will also need the following feats: Eschew Materials, Silent Spell, and Still Spell. These will allow you to ignore most of the penalties if you happen to be high level with lots of high-level spell slots to spare for lower level spells.
Without these things, the crippling penalties make it not even worth it.
STEP 2: Conceal the Spell Components
You will need the following:
- Bluff (skill)
- Conceal Spell (feat)
- Deceitful (feat)
- Disguise (skill)
- Improved Conceal Spell (feat)
- Sleight of Hand (skill)
Conceal Spell lets you cast a spell while concealing the Verbal or Somatic components behind mundane gestures or common speech. The spell's casting time (if a standard action) is increased to a full round or, if longer, doubles.
To discover your ruse, a creature must succeed at a Perception, Sense Motive, or Spellcraft check (the creature receives an automatic check with whichever of those skills has the highest bonus) against a DC equal to 15 + your number of ranks in Bluff or Disguise (whichever is higher) + your Charisma modifier; the creature gains a bonus on its check equal to the level of the spell or spell-like ability you are concealing.
If your spell has a somatic component, any creature that can see you receives a Perception or Spellcraft check (whichever has the highest bonus) against a DC equal to 15 + your number of ranks in Sleight of Hand + your Dexterity modifier; the creature gains a bonus on its check equal to the level of the spell or spell-like ability you are concealing.
So not only do they get to choose the higher of multiple skills with which to beat your static DC, they get a bonus equal to the level of your spell and they (most likely) get to make two checks, either of which, if successful, will totally ruin your day.
The Improved Conceal Spell gets rid of their bonus equal to your spell's level, making it an essential feat. Without it, they will see through the ruse more often then not, outing you as a criminal and ending your character's career early.
Hurray for feats that not only don't work well, they get your character retired.
STEP 3: Stop the Mental Ping
If you're using enchantment spells, and somehow manage to successfully conceal the spellcasting and the spell's components, a particularly strong-willed individual still might make their save and receive a "mental ping" that lets them know they were just mentally attacked. Furthermore, they can make a Knowledge check to identify what spell they were just targeted by. In order to prevent that from happening, you need the following:
- Deceitful (feat)
- Spell Focus: enchantment (feat)
- Subtle Enchantments (feat)
There's yet another catch, however. This feat doesn't eliminate the mental ping exactly. There's a static-you-can't-do-anything-to-improve-it 50% chance that it still occurs. Why? Hell if I know. Maybe the game developers simply delight in player characters going to prison or being lynched, or for GMs to be wholly unable to do anything in front of the PCs while keeping them unawares.
Final Thoughts
So in order to really make it work, all you really need is the following:
- 10 feats
- 3 maxed out skills
- Really high Charisma and Dexterity scores
I might be able to pull this all together at around 11th- or 13th-level or so with a human sorcerer. However, odds are I'm still going to fail the attempt more often than not, defeating the entire purpose.
Discussion Topic
Why is it so difficult to conceal spellcasting in Pathfinder? What do the developers have against scheming wizards and conniving sorcerer viziers who might want to use their magic discreetly?
I can understand stiff prerequisites and a short feat chain, but 10 feats and nearly your entire skill investment (if a sorcerer) only to have to face umpteenth hurdles anyways? Such a high level of investment combined with a low success rate kind of makes the whole concept/execution pointless, no?
EDIT: Here is an excerpt from my Crazy Character Emporium thread, in which I attempted to make this build work at as low level as possible:
Rafaj, 11th-level human snake charmer - A grand master of subtle magic.
Rafaj is a manipulative snake in manskin who is capable of concealing all of his spells' components, suppressing any outward displays of his magical casting, and preventing his enchantment spells from alerting their respective targets of the mental assault. This allows him to subtly control those of lesser will, out in the open, without their knowledge.
As a master manipulator, Rafaj prefers to manipulate others into doing his bidding from behind the scenes, even casting concealed spells out in the open if need be. Against particularly powerful foes, he uses his viper or a friendly handshake to lower his foe's saves with bestow curse before following up with control spells.
If forced into combat, Rafaj relies on defensive spells to buy himself time while he puts his fighting minions to work (most of whom might not even realize they are being controlled until the first order is given). When more direct methods are called for, he instead uses hold monster or deep slumber to disable his attackers (preferably the former as it is faster and allows him to gloat as he slits his victims' throats). He is also fond of conjuring pits of acid in order to dispose of unwanted bodies or other evidence of his wrongdoings.
He is currently statted as a serpentine bloodline sorcerer, but I am considering also writing up a mesmerist version of this character.
Let me know if it effects your own thoughts on these feats.
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, so mundanes aren't helpless around casters. With spell-like abilities, silent casting and psychic casting... you could run circles around anyone you met who couldn't resist your spells. Even in full view of a crowd.
It is on purpose that no caster will be able to cast without at least a chance of those around them noticing that they cast something. This is actually a good thing.
Otherwise you could run into NPCs who dominate your character, in front of your party, with no way for your party to know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because magic rewrites the rules of the universe, it isn't done with a blink and a nod.Actually, it is done with less than a blink and a nod depending on how you cast.
Still, silent spells... or spell-like abilities... or psychic casting all do so with no verbal or somatic components.
You not moving your hands and lips doesn’t mean the spell doesn’t light up and make a lot of sound.
At least that's what I think Ravingdork assumes and the devs have stated.
|
|
Because magic rewrites the rules of the universe, it isn't done with a blink and a nod.Actually, it is done with less than a blink and a nod depending on how you cast.
Still, silent spells... or spell-like abilities... or psychic casting all do so with no verbal or somatic components.You not moving your hands and lips doesn’t mean the spell doesn’t light up and make a lot of sound.
At least that's what I think Ravingdork assumes and the devs have stated.
You are correct on this. I was only replying to the 'blink and nod' part.
Spell casting is manifested in some way that is purposefully not described. They suggest looking at casters in official Paizo art to see examples of what you can say/your gm could say happens during casting.Like I said in a post before the one you quoted, it is on purpose that no caster will be able to cast without those watching having a chance to notice the casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
STEP 1: Concealing the casting FX
In order to conceal the (unwritten-in-the-rules) magical emanations of spellcasting you need the following:
- Cunning Caster (feat)
- Deceitful (feat)
- Bluff (skill)...
STEP 2: Conceal the Spell Components
You will need the following:
- Bluff (skill)
- Conceal Spell (feat)
- Deceitful (feat)
- Disguise (skill)
- Improved Conceal Spell (feat)
- Sleight of Hand (skill)
Are both steps 1+2 required?...
I read Cunning Caster as concealing both components and manifestations. Likewise I read Conceal Spell as concealing both components and manifestations. If so, you'd only ("only"!) need to pursue either "step 1" or "step 2" to get things off the ground.
Granted, that's still a hefty commitment, and one that's pretty hard to pull off.
dotting
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding Step 3 ("stop the mental ping"), I was initially irritated by this too. But I've been partially convinced that this isn't that unreasonable by the following argument:
If you cast a physical attack spell (like lightning bolt) at someone, you wouldn't expect to be able to conceal the fact that you'd done so. Likewise (the thought goes) if you cast a mental attack spell at someone, you shouldn't expect the fact that they've been attacked to go unnoticed either.
Granted, a lightning bolt spell has obvious visual effects (lightning!) that a dominate person spell doesn't have, which makes the former easier to attribute to a particular person. But even someone blind who was hit by a lightning bolt spell would presumably know they've been attacked, even if they didn't take any damage (due to electricity resistance or improved evasion, say), though they might not be able to identify where the attack came from. Likewise, one might argue, even an invisible attempt at dominating you is something you can expect to be aware of, even if the attack doesn't work (because you made the will save), and even though you won't know where the attack came from.
That doesn't strike me as an obviously crazy line of thought, anyway...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Porridge is right. Cunning Caster alone conceals your spellcasting if you can succeed on all the bluff checks. You don't need Conceal too.
In fact Conceal does basically nothing for arcane and divine casters because even if you succeed on the checks people still see you waving your arms around and shouting in an eldritch language right before a spell goes off. The only thing it really helps with is preventing AoOs and dodging readied actions unless you're Psychic, in which case it's better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellsong?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I used these tactics or developed what you wanted and used them on you as a GM to a player, chances are that you, or at least most players would get pretty honked off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Porridge is right. Cunning Caster alone conceals your spellcasting if you can succeed on all the bluff checks. You don't need Conceal too.
In fact Conceal does basically nothing for arcane and divine casters because even if you succeed on the checks people still see you waving your arms around and shouting in an eldritch language right before a spell goes off. The only thing it really helps with is preventing AoOs and dodging readied actions unless you're Psychic, in which case it's better.
Not, not quite.
If there is a verbal component, they still hear your loud, clear voice but don't notice the spell woven within it.
So for a verbal component you can pretend to be arguing, performing (bard), negotiating, telling a joke, singing drunkenly, whatever. If it succeeds they don't hear "eldritch language." And even if you were right it may not matter what they see as long is it right before a spell goes off, when it is hopefully too late, they suffered the effects and can't try to roll for initiative to beat you or take an AoO to interrupt you.
The math of which is better depends on the relative skills of the caster and his observers and what components are being used. A verbal only spell is at a +5 penalty for Cunning Caster, but is Bluff vs. Perception opposed roll(s). A verbal only spell has no penalty for Conceal Spell, but the observer uses their highest bonus of three skill options against a flat DC of 15 + highest of two skills (Bluff or Disguise) + Charisma. For equal skill levels that's a 5 point advantage for the verbal caster using Conceal Spell vs. no components Cunning Caster, or a 10 point net advantage for verbal component vs. verbal component. But then you subtract out the spell level, so actual benefit of Conceal Spell vs. Cunning Caster for a verbal only component is between +1 and +9.
That's assuming everyone has equal skills, which isn't a safe assumption, although generally speaking adding Sense Motive or Spellcraft as a superior option to Perception isn't going to hurt you much if at all.
If it also has a Somatic component, you do all the verbal stuff, and you do a best of two skills target test against 15 + Sleight of Hand + Dexterity. So as a caster with this feat you need two solid attributes and two skills that you might not otherwise care about maxed. And you have two opportunities to fail although with better odds on each.
It also looks like RAW you can't use Conceal Spell at all for psychic casting, since it says you hide the manifestation in some combo of verbal and somatic components. You don't have those, so I don't know. And Conceal Spell doesn't mention material components or focus at all, so it's kind of a mess. Does it not work if you have those components? Seems so. I guess this is designed primarily for Sorcerers, who have appropriate skills and attributes and the Eschew Materials feat to help it work.
Conceal Spell
Pros: Good for Sorcerers and Wizards without material components who have high Bluff/Disguise/Sleight of Hand and a good Dex/Cha. Avoids punitive stacking component penalties from components like Cunning Caster. Gives a single test against a 15 + modifier DC, so it's simpler (hah!) than the opposed test for Cunning Caster and gives you a 5 point advantage vs. a Cunning Caster with no components.
Cons: Requires verbal or somatic components, so no psychic casting. Requires two separate tests if you have both V and S. Doesn't cover for material or focus components.
Cunning Caster
Pros: Simpler to run, just oppose your Bluff (which is easier to optimize) against the Perception (no alternate skill options). Optimal for psychic casters, and their only option.
Cons: Huge penalties for components.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At a certain point, it's much easier to just use Stealth or Greater Invisibility to conceal yourself. People can't see you cast if they can't see you in the first place. Spellcasting doesn't break stealth like attacks do (unless the spell calls for an attack roll, which most don't), and bluff can be used to create a diversion to stealth in a social setting. That's way easier than paying a feat tax to muck around with the downright ludicrous penalties of Cunning Caster.
For my part, I've been running Sleight of Hand as the catch-all skill to use whenever someone wants to conceal an action they're taking in plain sight. The Cunning Caster feat is pretty much incompatible with how I've been running things at my table for years, so I'm just going to ignore it.
At a certain point, it's much easier to just use Stealth or Greater Invisibility to conceal yourself. People can't see you cast if they can't see you in the first place. Spellcasting doesn't break stealth like attacks do (unless the spell calls for an attack roll, which most don't), and bluff can be used to create a diversion to stealth in a social setting. That's way easier than paying a feat tax to muck around with the downright ludicrous penalties of Cunning Caster.
Spellcasting with a saving throw does break invisibility, so it's not going to work if you want to Charm/Suggestion someone in a crowd. And assuming you can creep through that crowd invisible to get in range.
I don't know what standard use of the Bluff skill you're using to accomplish that, either. If it wouldn't let you get a surprise round and punch someone before they could roll initiative, it wouldn't let you cast a spell, either. The Unabashed Gall trait lets you try something like that, though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because when you stick a sword into someone everyone gets to see who's holding the sword.
If you are a walking tac nuke, you really need to give the other people a chance to see it coming.
Depends on what you mean by conceal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcasting with a saving throw does break invisibility, so it's not going to work if you want to Charm/Suggestion someone in a crowd. And assuming you can creep through that crowd invisible to get in range.
That is why I said Greater Invisibility. Whether regular Invisibility works depends on your GM's ruling on whether it ends before or after the spell completes, so I'm just going to presume the less favorable ruling and say it doesn't work for the purpose of this conversation.
Moving among a heavy crowd of people would be better suited to stealth rather than invisibility.
I don't know what standard use of the Bluff skill you're using to accomplish that, either.
The Stealth skill explicitly says you can use a Bluff check to hide while being observed:
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check while people are aware of you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. Your presentation of the matter seems a little off.
- Step one and two are not actually separate steps; they are both hiding the fact that you are casting a spell. If either works, then the other is unnecessary- you only need both for the very cautious redundancy.
- If you are using both step one and two, then don't present it as needing to make two checks. By removing the somatic component in step one, you remove the need for sleight of hand in step two.
- You say you need three maxed out skills, but it's only two- you use Bluff for both step one and step two, ignoring disguise entirely (since step two requires bluff or disguise).
- You say that Bluff needs to be absolutely maxed out, but that's only true if you want step one to be guaranteed. If it is, then step two can be ignored. At the very least, that means you can drop at least one feat.
Quid's Seventh Level Super-Sneaky Sorcerer:
Human Psychic Bloodline Sorcerer
1st: Deceitful, Cunning Caster from human
3rd: Conceal Spell
5th: Improved Conceal Spell
7th: Spell Focus (Enchantment) from bloodline, Subtle Enchantments
Get +2 racial bonus to Bluff from Silver Tongued, max ranks in Bluff. If your GM is willing to allow bloodline familiars, take a snake bloodline familiar for an extra +3 to bluff. Apply items as needed. Assume charisma score of 22.
Result: When casting, observers must make a perception check opposing your bluff and a DC 28 Perception or Sense Motive check. If the target succeeds their will save vs. an enchantment, there is a 50% chance they don't notice. If they do notice, they still can't pin it on you.
Conceal Spell can't be used by psychic caster like your psychic bloodline sorcerer. You disguise your verbal/somatic components and hide the spell manifestation in them. But psychic casters only have the manifestations, so they can't use it. They have to use Cunning Caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A useful way to compare these two feats:
Cunning Caster is an opposed test (Perception vs. Bluff) with a bunch of -4 penalties for components, if any. There is no modifier for spell level.
Conceal Spell for verbal spells is like an opposed test (Perception/Sense Motive/Spellcraft vs. Bluff/Disguise) where the caster takes 15 but cannot benefit from feats that boost those skills (because you're not making a test where they apply, just using your base ranks) and with a penalty for spell level.
Then if you have a somatic component you do it again, but with different skill matchups and still taking 15 on the caster's side.
Improved Conceal Spell takes away the penalty for spell level.
You can't use Concealed Spell at all if you have a M or F component.
I doubt the inability to use your Deceitful feat is intended here, but RAW I think that's how it works. That provides a benefit to your skill checks, this isn't a check, just a static number for them to hit.
---
Edit: Can the caster even benefit from his class skill bonuses, the Deceitful feat, or Skill Focus? See here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tkni?Do-skill-boosting-feats-help-static-DCs-b ased#1
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Conceal Spell can't be used by psychic caster like your psychic bloodline sorcerer. You disguise your verbal/somatic components and hide the spell manifestation in them. But psychic casters only have the manifestations, so they can't use it. They have to use Cunning Caster.
Nah, it works fine with psychic casting. You are hiding verbal components, somatic components, and manifestations. There's nothing mentioned about hiding the manifestations in other components. We know that it works on things without no verbal or somatic components, otherwise you couldn't do it with SLAs (which are specifically included).
As far as Deceitful and Skill Focus applying, those definitely don't. The DC is intentionally set up to not factor in anything but your ranks and ability score. Deceitful is pure feat tax. On the other hand, you're also not obligated to min-max your bluff score to get an additional edge.
Also, small mistake in my last post- the opponent's check for Conceal Spell could also be a spellcraft check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I see my mistake. I thought the first check said it was as part of a verbal component, just like the second check says its as part of a somatic component. I also read this as requiring a component: "Since you are concealing the spell’s manifestation through other actions, others observing you realize you’re doing something, even if they don’t realize you’re casting a spell." I guess it doesn't say the "something" has to be a component, so the first check is for psychic casters and verbal only casters.
Cunning Caster still seems better for psychic casters, you don't get to "take 15," but you get your class skill bonus (+3) your Deceitful bonus (+2/+4), and you don't get the spell level penalty (-1 to -9). And if you're a psychic who took a trait to apply Int you get to keep that, a mesmerist gets to keep its 1/2 class to Bluff, and you can take Skill focus to make it better if you want.
Which is as it should be, psychic casters should have an easier time hiding their casting.
My remaining question is how Conceal Casting interacts with M and F components. It doesn't mention them at all, and it doesn't seem reasonable that they are effortlessly hidden. My guess is that you can't hide them at all with this feat, only Cunning Caster (with penalties) can do so.
My guess is that unless something specifically requires presenting the focus (as a divine focus does), material components and focuses can be hidden. Seems like some good FAQ material, though.
Honestly, the magical glowing floaty bits that apparently pop up when anyone is casting a spell (Or spell-like ability, as of now) strikes me as a video game balancing mechanic. It's like Final Fantasy, where any characters casting a spell blatantly glow with an aura or sparkles or something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the magical glowing floaty bits that apparently pop up when anyone is casting a spell (Or spell-like ability, as of now) strikes me as a video game balancing mechanic. It's like Final Fantasy, where any characters casting a spell blatantly glow with an aura or sparkles or something.
To be entirely fair, I suspect if I were to ask someone to "draw me a wizard who is casting a spell", I'd probably get a drawing with lots of glowing floaty bits. Same deal if I asked someone to describe in words what it should look like. Heck, just look at the cover of the core rulebook, and it's pretty obvious that in one form or another the "magic is obvious" interpretation has been around since day 1.
The issue is more that nothing has ever explicitly said that magic is obvious, or in what ways it's obvious. It's always just been something implicit that has never been formally addressed in the rules mechanic. This means that every table has probably been playing it slightly differently. In that respect, I do like the Psionic rules for displays since they explicitly broach this subject and set a nice clean expectation of what it looks like when you're casting manifesting a spell power.
If casting spells was simple to conceal there's be no reason why every mortal realm wouldn't be ruled by an enchanter. Mind controlling magic wrecks settings really quickly if there aren't checks on it.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh....this is one of those things I could have listed in the thread about Errata You Ignore.
It just seems to be the whole point of spell like abilities not having all the components.
When you have a Fey trickster playing practical jokes on people, there shouldn't be a strobe light going off over the fairy's/gremlin's head saying "here he is!"
Or if your doppelganger spy is using his detect thoughts spell like to try to read peoples' minds, it shouldn't be obvious that is what he is doing.
Even if the disguised succubus or other shapeshifter starts putting the moves on a PC of the opposite sex, and works a charm on them, it shouldn't be obvious that is what they did unless the target passes their save.
A lot of witches curses or boons should be subtle enough not to notice.
I am not saying a Spellcraft check would be out of the question in all of these situations either. But it shouldn't be setting off "there's magic going on here" fireworks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If casting spells was simple to conceal there's be no reason why every mortal realm wouldn't be ruled by an enchanter. Mind controlling magic wrecks settings really quickly if there aren't checks on it.
Permanent Detect Magic is only 2,500gp to cast, a mere drop in the bucket for a ruler of a functioning realm. Even if they don't want to invest that much in an archmage any wizard that didn't neglect their divination classes can just have Detect Magic up during important meeting. And of course this isn't counting abjuration spells that are specifically designed to stop that in the first place.
I'm not saying it's fair and balanced but if a mage wants to conquer the realm he can't just cast silent, still, charm person if he wants to have any substantial foothold, unless everyone's a moron that doesn't plan for magical attacks.
If casting spells was simple to conceal there's be no reason why every mortal realm wouldn't be ruled by an enchanter. Mind controlling magic wrecks settings really quickly if there aren't checks on it.Permanent Detect Magic is only 2,500gp to cast, a mere drop in the bucket for a ruler of a functioning realm. Even if they don't want to invest that much in an archmage any wizard that didn't neglect their divination classes can just have Detect Magic up during important meeting. And of course this isn't counting abjuration spells that are specifically designed to stop that in the first place.
I'm not saying it's fair and balanced but if a mage wants to conquer the realm he can't just cast silent, still, charm person if he wants to have any substantial foothold, unless everyone's a moron that doesn't plan for magical attacks.
That's the other kind of check, high level of preparation. Of course the DM can always say "ah-ha, but they were using this defense all along", but there are ways around that. Don't target the ruler directly, use his inner circle as pawns to usurp him. Mind control the military leaders to stage a coup. Convince the heir to "move the succession ahead". Incite riots among the peasantry to justify a eerily coordinated rebellion. Give the consort "proof" of the ruler's disloyalty and leverage their revenge into your gain. Make the captain of the guard believe that the ruler is slipping into tyranny and that the will of justice must be done in order to save the kingdom. Command the greatest smith in the land to gift the ruler with a magical blade of unparalleled quality (which is actually designed to cast a stored dominate spell), the detect magic will detect magic in a known to be magical sword, hardly unusual. Make ensorcelled accomplices of the chefs and food tasters in order to slip any manner of potion into the ruler's food or beverage.
I could keep going. Only one of those even requires casting a spell on the ruler, so detect magic would be of limited use. Several of them might require casting in front of witnesses though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh....this is one of those things I could have listed in the thread about Errata You Ignore.
It just seems to be the whole point of spell like abilities not having all the components.
When you have a Fey trickster playing practical jokes on people, there shouldn't be a strobe light going off over the fairy's/gremlin's head saying "here he is!"
Or if your doppelganger spy is using his detect thoughts spell like to try to read peoples' minds, it shouldn't be obvious that is what he is doing.
Even if the disguised succubus or other shapeshifter starts putting the moves on a PC of the opposite sex, and works a charm on them, it shouldn't be obvious that is what they did unless the target passes their save.
A lot of witches curses or boons should be subtle enough not to notice.
I am not saying a Spellcraft check would be out of the question in all of these situations either. But it shouldn't be setting off "there's magic going on here" fireworks.
There's a lot of evidence out there that this was not the intent during Pathfinder's early days. Even if they refuse to admit it, pretty much everyone knows that these new rules were implemented just so they didn't have to fix psychics not having any traditional (read, easily observable) spell components.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Except stuff on this subject significantly predates OA. It first came up in a thread about why you still got spellcraft checks on someone casting a stilled, silent spell, which in and of itself is a topic that dates back to 3.X.
...
FYI he knows that.
He knows that because he has made roughly the same statements in the past, and has had all of this explained to him.
He also knows because he was the one who started the thread in which Jason clarified how spellcasting without components works in the first place.
There's a lot of evidence out there that this was not the intent during Pathfinder's early days. Even if they refuse to admit it, pretty much everyone knows that these new rules were implemented just so they didn't have to fix psychics not having any traditional (read, easily observable) spell components.Eh....this is one of those things I could have listed in the thread about Errata You Ignore.
It just seems to be the whole point of spell like abilities not having all the components.
When you have a Fey trickster playing practical jokes on people, there shouldn't be a strobe light going off over the fairy's/gremlin's head saying "here he is!"
Or if your doppelganger spy is using his detect thoughts spell like to try to read peoples' minds, it shouldn't be obvious that is what he is doing.
Even if the disguised succubus or other shapeshifter starts putting the moves on a PC of the opposite sex, and works a charm on them, it shouldn't be obvious that is what they did unless the target passes their save.
A lot of witches curses or boons should be subtle enough not to notice.
I am not saying a Spellcraft check would be out of the question in all of these situations either. But it shouldn't be setting off "there's magic going on here" fireworks.
Save that these questions were addressed by the devs LONG before psychic magic was a thing. The implications of these rules date all the way back to 3.0 when the still and silent metamagics themselves did not include any modifiers to identification of spells. Or that spells with only one component, like Teleport's verbal were any harder to identify than spells that had all three.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And on top of all that... the spellcraft skill is actually different to the 3.5e spellcraft where they removed the part where you have to see the spells components... meaning components haven't been a factor since the CRB....
|
You have to see a spell being cast/used to identify it. Because Spellcraft is used to identify a Spell being cast (that is before it s actually cast), it stands to reason that the only real way to identify the spell would be to see/hear what components are being added together to create the specific magic.
It's less that PF changed anything and more that it goes without saying that if you are Blind, Deaf, and unable to touch the spell components of the caster, you autofail the Spellcraft check. Or, rather, you don't even get one. PF just changed it to " 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."
Wouldn't be a stretch then, based on your logic to argue that Verbal Components are irrelevant, because the RAW state "must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast".
:P
Anyway, one of the biggest issues I have with the Ultimate Intrigue book, which isn't a bad book all around, is that it seems heavily based on playstyle or general fantasy world assumptions that are not really supported by anything else as the one true way, or even sometimes creates them up wholesale, and is really bordering on the edge of being like those Feats that just restrict what could have already have been done before it came around, and I'm not sure I like that sort of mentality. Verbal Components need to be spoken out loud in a strong voice, not SHOUTED. Most spells do not have any noticeable visual effects, and that was intentional, especially for Divine Spells which are by nature often NOT FLASHY LIKE ARCANE MAGIC.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because casters can't have nice things.
*snerk*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because casters can't have nice things.
HahahahHAHAhaha. *wiped tear away* HahahahHA
That's the other kind of check, high level of preparation. Of course the DM can always say "ah-ha, but they were using this defense all along", but there are ways around that. Don't target the ruler directly, use his inner circle as pawns to usurp him. Mind control the military leaders to stage a coup. Convince the heir to "move the succession ahead". Incite riots among the peasantry to justify a eerily coordinated rebellion. Give the consort "proof" of the ruler's disloyalty and leverage their revenge into your gain. Make the captain of the guard believe that the ruler is slipping into tyranny and that the will of justice must be done in order to save the kingdom. Command the greatest smith in the land to gift the ruler with a magical blade of unparalleled quality (which is actually designed to cast a stored dominate spell), the detect magic will detect magic in a known to be magical sword, hardly unusual. Make ensorcelled accomplices of the chefs and food tasters in order to slip any manner of potion into the ruler's food or beverage.If casting spells was simple to conceal there's be no reason why every mortal realm wouldn't be ruled by an enchanter. Mind controlling magic wrecks settings really quickly if there aren't checks on it.Permanent Detect Magic is only 2,500gp to cast, a mere drop in the bucket for a ruler of a functioning realm. Even if they don't want to invest that much in an archmage any wizard that didn't neglect their divination classes can just have Detect Magic up during important meeting. And of course this isn't counting abjuration spells that are specifically designed to stop that in the first place.
I'm not saying it's fair and balanced but if a mage wants to conquer the realm he can't just cast silent, still, charm person if he wants to have any substantial foothold, unless everyone's a moron that doesn't plan for magical attacks.
It doesn't matter how obvious magic casting is if you can find those guys alone and throw the right spell at them. And remember that the sense motive skill can be used to detect if someone isn't acting like themselves. The only one of these that has much of a shot is the blacksmith one, assuming he fails his will save (you usually need to be a caster to make a magic blade of really high power.) Also detect magic would detect just what that that blade is and people with half a brain would be cautious around someone with a f#%*ing sword of mind control.
Seriously, masses might be stupid but assuming that the current ruler/ruling family isn't inbred or off their nut they should have a lot of defenses against magic put up. Anything 5th level and up is worth preparing against and possibly some 6th level spells depending on where you're located. If your rule was taken down by a couple of 1st level spells then you should never have been ruling in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So let's say that Paizo changed the way spellcasting worked from v3.5 (despite all their original efforts to keep things relatively compatible) and that the way things are now is as they always intended it to be.
That doesn't change the fact that a whole lot of monster and character concepts, as published, no longer work as they were clearly intended.
The succubus who can't charm people and the doppelganger who can't read peoples' minds without giving themselves away are but a few examples that have already been mentioned.
If nothing else, the "light show" should not apply to spell-like abilities. But that's off-topic I guess. Moving on...
Because if you are player and the DM Goes, "Hey, you are under the effects of a Dominate person. Well, the bar was crowded and you were looking the other way at the barmaid/man when the wizard cast the spell. No , none of your other friends saw him either, crowded bar and all that."
You might complain that you should have gotten a chance to have seen it.
It must be fair for both sides, Good thing there are feats that can help hide magic
Fair? This is a cooperative game. A GM isn't going to do what you describe for the same reason he doesn't tell the players "the assassin slit your throats in your sleep." --Because it would end the narrative and ruin everyone's fun. It's not the rules or the mechanics that causes or prevents that, it's the GM.
So, unless you're also going to invent a rule that prevents the GM from slitting PCs' throats in their sleep, your point is rather moot.
Also, I'm not saying it should be automatically successful at low levels. I am simply arguing that they made it far too difficult to pull off, even at high levels.
A four feat tree with skill rank prerequisites that made the tactic exclusive to high levels would have been fine.
But ten feats and all that other stuff is just way too much if you ask me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? As others have noted, Concealed Spell covers the same ground as Cunning Caster. Having both is completely unnecessary to anyone ever.
You misread things if you think you need both.
Concealed Spell actually also only requires either Bluff or Disguise, not both. You need the other at 5 ranks, but not at full.
Your '10 Feats' thing is thus, basically, a load of crap. Not necessarily in the sense of you being deceptive, but definitely in the sense of it being factually accurate.
You need (at most) either:
Deceitful
Concealed Spell
Improved Concealed Spell
Spell Focus (Enchantment)
Subtle Enchantments
Maxed Bluff and Sleight of Hand skills. 5 ranks of Disguise.
Or:
Deceitful
Cunning Caster
Spell Focus (Enchantment)
Subtle Enchantments
Maxed Bluff Skill.
And up to three Feats to remove components (could be none for a Psychic Caster).
That's 5 Feats max unless you're going the Cunning Caster route as a non-psychic (probably a bad idea...unless you're keeping Bluff super high, that might work better). And two maxed skills plus a few ranks in a third.
And it's two Feats less if you're not focused on Mind Control (so two or three). And, if you are focused on mind control, Spell Focus is something you already had, so I almost wouldn't count it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take on the issue: there are already people saying things like, "My guide to the rogue: be a bard," or, "I call my enchanter an investigator."
Spells already support or obviate social skills, with the main issue being the risks of casting a spell in the open, or people realizing they just made a save. If casters could cast spells without doing anything obvious, why bother putting any ranks in Diplomacy when you could cast Charm Person and nobody would be the wiser?
Did you D-door away, or go invisible? Who knows?
Why be an assassin or slayer, having to sneak up on or lie to your target and make an attack that requires a Fort save, when a conceal-oriented caster can cast Destruction or similar with fewer risks?
The main problem, as UI explains, with using magic to get your way is that people can see you cast a spell, the target realizes she just made a save, and put two and two together. If you can reliably hide the fact that you're casting a spell that doesn't involve you throwing or zapping something, there's (reliably) no risk to doing it, even if the target makes their save.
Also, spell casting having to be dramatically obvious (which I don't mind) means everyone doesn't have to live in constant paranoia. Nobody wants to hear from their GM, "Hey, make a Will save. ...Yeah, now you're brainwashed. No, nobody noticed who did it or how."
If you want your caster to secretly influence people, you can always buff your willing associates before going outside.