| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one in ultimate intrigue was made in part as an attempt to get a PFS legal option for it, since the other one was banhammered for making your casting undetectable
Insofar as I can tell, Cunning Caster hides the spell components, not the light show.
Conceal Spell I'm just not sure about. It seems rather poorly worded over all (which certainly isn't going to help anything if it was intended as an alternative for PFS).
It seems like it says how to hide Somatic components, but doesn't seem to have equivalent checks or verbiage for any of the other components. So...do witnesses get to check against one DC or multiple DCs? I think the latter, as written, but it's hard to say what the intent was meant to be with it worded the way it is.
The former feat is great, but leaves you looking like you're standing around doing nothing (which may or may not be fine, depending on circumstances).
The latter feat allows you to talk, move about or perform other seemingly mundane actions while you cast the spell, but also seems to require you to do that in order to mask the spell.
As such, you need both to be covered for those times where you're a nobody in a corner trying to keep your head low, and for those times where you're shaking the mayor's hand (while simultaneously cursing him) in the public spotlight.
The one in ultimate intrigue was made in part as an attempt to get a PFS legal option for it, since the other one was banhammered for making your casting undetectable
PFS...always changing the game for everyone else...
(Sorry, that's a rant for another day.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who's run into a situation where in the module the author just ignored the obvious spellcasting thing and made it just not noticeble cus tavern is loud, this get's REALLY frustrating fast. Room full of people, spells happening and no way to tell who's doing it. Several people got spell component pouches so could be any of em.
Turns out it's none of em, it's someone in the rafters with a high stealth score and nobody noticed em casting various illusions and enchantments and such. Combine it with invisibility and...
Well, it's a recipe for misery when you're level 2 and have no access to counters or a reliable means to know it's not someone in the crowd. Until you get something like Arcane Sight you kinda are just SOL. And given how easy it is to get a skill fairly high up like stealth, and all the various penalties, it just get's messy.
I agree on spell likes MAYBE not having that sort of penalty since they aren't spells and lack all components to begin with, still can be horrendously abusable (Like the succubus isn't powerful enough already? :p) as an tactic any caster could use it's just asking to infuriate both players and dms equally.
|
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, doubling the casting time and still having to do things makes it useless for casting a spell and nobody knows you did anything, but having your friends make distractions or just talk to the target at the same time could take attention away from you.
Plus, everyone knows how Pathfinder agents do weird things all the time, so it could go without scrutiny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hidden casting is kind of like invisibility or illusions whre NPC's do it one way and pcs have to do it another..
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mesmerist with Cunning Caster is the king of this. Non-penalized Bluff check vs Perception (with a penalty for distance if you're smart) on a Charisma-based caster with a half-level bonus to Bluff checks.
Illusions, charms, suggestions. Always when you get someone alone, away from extra Sense Motive checks and good influences. Combined with straight up Diplomacy/Bluff to get friendly with the right people and 'Suggest Course of Action' from Giant Hunter's Handbook to make sure nothing gets traced back to you when people start snooping, you control the general flow of peoples' actions from relative safety without having to resort to an easily detectable domination effect. You convince people that they always wanted to do what you want without any lingering spell effects.
More than Mind Control, indeed..
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Insofar as I can tell, Cunning Caster hides the spell components, not the light show.
It allows you to conceal your actions when casting. The flavor text says you are concealing your magical abilities. In both cases, that includes hiding the light show.
Conceal Spell seems reasonably well put together. It hides you casting your spell (or SLA, which Cunning Caster does not). Observers get a check. If your spell has somatic components, observers get an additional check to spot it.
Needing to take both is something you seem to be reading into this. If you're hiding psychic spells, go with Cunning Caster. It's two feats and one skill. If you're hiding any other sort of magic, go with Conceal Spell. It's two feats, three if you want more than low-level spells, and two skills.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Insofar as I can tell, Cunning Caster hides the spell components, not the light show.
No, it explicitly says it hides the whole action of casting. That definitionally includes the light show.
Conceal Spell I'm just not sure about. It seems rather poorly worded over all (which certainly isn't going to help anything if it was intended as an alternative for PFS).
Seems clear to me. I think you're overthinking this.
It seems like it says how to hide Somatic components, but doesn't seem to have equivalent checks or verbiage for any of the other components. So...do witnesses get to check against one DC or multiple DCs? I think the latter, as written, but it's hard to say what the intent was meant to be with it worded the way it is.
Verbal are counted in the base check (the one with Bluff or Disguise). There's no other way to parse that, given that the Feat specifically says it conceals both Verbal and Somatic, but only has a separate check for somatic from the base check.
The former feat is great, but leaves you looking like you're standing around doing nothing (which may or may not be fine, depending on circumstances).
Yup. And I can't think of a circumstance where that's all that bad. And you can still take a move action, so you can be calmly walking while doing it.
The latter feat allows you to talk, move about or perform other seemingly mundane actions while you cast the spell, but also seems to require you to do that in order to mask the spell.
Yep. But, again, I can think of very few circumstances under which you can't make that work. You can fake talking to your fellow party member while casting at the guy across the room and you're good. Just for example.
As such, you need both to be covered for those times where you're a nobody in a corner trying to keep your head low, and for those times where you're shaking the mayor's hand (while simultaneously cursing him) in the public spotlight.
That's like saying all combat characters need both Power Attack for melee combat and Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim for ranged in order to do damage effectively. Plus Quick Draw to switch between them.
You can build a character who has all of those Feats, it's true, but it's not necessary to do so in the least to make a character who does damage, just like it's not necessary in the least to take both routes to subtle casting on a character who wants to cast spells without getting caught.
I'm rather happy they printed Conceal Spell, works much better than Cunning Caster IMO, easy to get, and it's in an RPG-line book (I don't use golarion ones).
I'm rather happy they printed Conceal Spell, works much better than Cunning Caster IM0, easy to get, and it's in an RPG-line book (I don't use golarion ones).
To me that feat still lets people see that you're doing "something." Most NPCs that see someone doing "something" are going to go SPELLCASTER and beat them on the head.
To me that feat still lets people see that you're doing "something." Most NPCs that see someone doing "something" are going to go SPELLCASTER and beat them on the head.
To realize your casting a spell after not realizing you were casting from the checks and ends up seeing you "do something" like you suggest the following text would have to apply "If a character interacts with you long enough to attempt a Sense Motive check without realizing you have been casting spells, that character can use Sense Motive to gain a hunch that you’re behaving unusually."
And all that does it make them realize you are behaving unusually.
I'm rather happy they printed Conceal Spell, works much better than Cunning Caster IM0, easy to get, and it's in an RPG-line book (I don't use golarion ones).
How is it easier to get? It's got the same prerequisite feat, plus skill rank 1 in three skills. Unless you meant the source material.
How is it easier to get? It's got the same prerequisite feat, plus skill rank 1 in three skills. Unless you meant the source material.
Easy to get, not easier.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm rather happy they printed Conceal Spell, works much better than Cunning Caster IM0, easy to get, and it's in an RPG-line book (I don't use golarion ones).To me that feat still lets people see that you're doing "something." Most NPCs that see someone doing "something" are going to go SPELLCASTER and beat them on the head.
This is basically only true if your GM is an ass. It's b+~**@#& metagaming of a sort a GM should never indulge in.
This is basically only true if your GM is an ass. It's b*~**#&$ metagaming of a sort a GM should never indulge in.
It's also houseruling to facilitate the metagaming, which IMO is worse. Since your making a decision based on the mechanics... and then ignoring the mechanics that allowed to make that decision. @_@
It doesn't matter how obvious magic casting is if you can find those guys alone and throw the right spell at them.
Right, but if it isn't obvious at all, you don't have to catch them alone. You could set everything up in the middle of a crowded ball and no-one would have a clue.
In regards to the plans, for best results you'd use two or three at once. Like the peasant rebellion and knight captain. Or consort, heir, and kitchen staff. Oh, and detect magic would only reveal the sword to have an Enchantment effect (and even then only if it's the strongest effect), but what kind of Enchantment effect. Obviously the smith would tell the kind that sword will enhance his majestic appearance and lend powerful weight to his words, not unlike a badge of office befitting a king.
It doesn't take an inbred moron to fall for an avalanche of plans, it takes a clever strategist to avoid them. If everyone the king knows and trusts might potentially be made to kill him, even if he survives he'll be so paranoid and isolated that he won't rule for long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me that feat still lets people see that you're doing "something." Most NPCs that see someone doing "something" are going to go SPELLCASTER and beat them on the head.
IME most people who see someone doing "something" react with a puzzled look and a "wtf is he doing?"
It doesn't matter how obvious magic casting is if you can find those guys alone and throw the right spell at them.Right, but if it isn't obvious at all, you don't have to catch them alone. You could set everything up in the middle of a crowded ball and no-one would have a clue.
In regards to the plans, for best results you'd use two or three at once. Like the peasant rebellion and knight captain. Or consort, heir, and kitchen staff. Oh, and detect magic would only reveal the sword to have an Enchantment effect (and even then only if it's the strongest effect), but what kind of Enchantment effect. Obviously the smith would tell the kind that sword will enhance his majestic appearance and lend powerful weight to his words, not unlike a badge of office befitting a king.
It doesn't take an inbred moron to fall for an avalanche of plans, it takes a clever strategist to avoid them. If everyone the king knows and trusts might potentially be made to kill him, even if he survives he'll be so paranoid and isolated that he won't rule for long.
And it takes a mastermind to orchestrate that avalanche of plans and not get caught, especially with divination spells all over the place. Hell it's a first level spell to ask "should I trust this person" and a 4th level spell to ask "is anyone I trust planning against me" and other questions with even less error. You can get caught without any error on your part in this world pretty easily. And that's assuming that the king is a level 7 aristocrat or something similar, gods help you if you're going against a level 13 cleric or divination wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you know, phenomenal cosmic power has to come with some price now and again - and the difficulty in subtlety is one of them.
| 1 person 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.Spellcraft States that you don't see the caster, you see *the spell* specifically
That's an interesting point, and once again strikes to the heart of the matter that we're dealing with vaguely defined unwritten rules. I'd still say invisibility and stealth work, however.
Stealth says that you are treated as having total concealment from observers, and it makes perfect sense that any spell you're casting has the same concealment as your character does.
For invisibility, the closest we have for a rules analogy is how it interacts with light sources. Invisibility explicitly does not make the light invisible, but it does make the source invisible (becoming a light with no visible source). This is the best guidelines for how to treat the visual display of spellcasting, which would indicate that the invisibility spell does make the 'light show' of spellcasting invisible. If the visual display of spellcasting would be enough to raise the ambient light level then it would be noticeable, but otherwise it would not.
Why does everyone seem to like Conceal Spell more? It seems to me to be the inferior choice, since it relies on static DCs and has a relatively low chance of success when compared to Cunning Caster. (You can take the final modifier much, much farther than you can base ranks, plus you get to add an additional 1-20 to it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The stacking penalties for Cunning Caster hurt quite a bit. You're rolling at -8 for a VS spell, which means you need +13 to bluff from sources that aren't ranks or charisma to equal Conceal on a 10.
So if you can't ignore those components or pump your bluff mod it becomes a more attractive option.
Also some people apparently don't like Player Companion, so Conceal being in an Ultimate book makes it better. For some reason.
That said, yeah, Conceal's reliance on two skills, weird restrictions on what it benefits from and inability to hide M or F components make me less than a fan of that feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it so hard to conceal spellcasting in Pathfinder?
Because Rogues are a horrible, horrible class and this lets them have SOMETHING.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does everyone seem to like Conceal Spell more? It seems to me to be the inferior choice, since it relies on static DCs and has a relatively low chance of success when compared to Cunning Caster. (You can take the final modifier much, much farther than you can base ranks, plus you get to add an additional 1-20 to it.)
Because Conceal Spell doesn't require making a spell stilled and silent. That's one or two levels of adjustment to most spells. If you can get around that (again, psychic caster), then Cunning Caster is better. Similarly, if you have the spare resources to get over +13 (+17 if you leave in material components) to bluff (not counting ranks and Charisma mod) and only use it while you can take ten, then sure, power past the penalties.
Cunning caster has component penalties, but it also allows you Deceitful feat, skill focus, if any, and class skill bonus, if any, to go into the check. All of that can offset some components penalties. With a trait that makes Bluff either a class skill or Int based a Wizard might still do better with Cunning Caster if he wants to take Skill Focus and just ignore penalties. It's even easier to justify for a Sorcerer. It's not clear cut, lots of options and confounding variables, like the level penalty on Concealed Casting.
And note that Suggestion (Mass), an obvious stealth casting pick, is V only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
And note that Suggestion (Mass), an obvious stealth casting pick, is V only.
Mass Suggestion and Suggestion both have Material Components.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a trait to get Eschew Materials for a single school of magic. Handy for a specialist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mass Suggestion and Suggestion both have Material Components....
And note that Suggestion (Mass), an obvious stealth casting pick, is V only.
Oops. Well Conceal doesn't mention any option to hide M so Cunning Caster might be the only option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it would be easy, everyone would be doing it.
Not a single person here has said that it should be easy.
There is a trait to get Eschew Materials for a single school of magic. Handy for a specialist.
What's that one called?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a trait to get Eschew Materials for a single school of magic. Handy for a specialist.What's that one called?
Shrouded Casting. Ultimate Campaign.
Oops. Well Conceal doesn't mention any option to hide M so Cunning Caster might be the only option.
... it doesn't need to mention it hides M....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oops. Well Conceal doesn't mention any option to hide M so Cunning Caster might be the only option.... it doesn't need to mention it hides M....
Are you envisioning your disguising verbal patter being along the lines of "what do you get when a snake's tongue and a honeycomb walk into a bar? A free tankard for me!" [roll Will save]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you envisioning your disguising verbal patter being along the lines of "what do you get when a snake's tongue and a honeycomb walk into a bar? A free tankard for me!" [roll Will save]
Have the object in your clenched fist, so one see's it. Technically, if your going RAW you don't even need it in your hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to be able to manipulate it.
To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any).
Manipulate in the physical, not psychological or social sense, definitionally means to use your hands on it. It's derived from a Latin term meaning "handful."
But I guess your subtle, don't mind me hiding technique can involve waving your clenched fist at the crowd you don't want to suspect you of causing the spell effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to be able to manipulate it.
Manipulate in the physical, not psychological or social sense, definitionally means to use your hands on it. It's derived from a Latin term meaning "handful."But I guess your subtle, don't mind me hiding technique can involve waving your clenched fist at the crowd you don't want to suspect you of causing the spell effect.
Being able to manipulate does not equal holding. You can manipulate objects in your pockets rather easily. Also, nowhere in the text suggests you have to present the component towards the targets of the spell effect, so even if it is in your fist you don't have to shake it towards the targets at all.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can manipulate objects in your pockets rather easily.
Please don't overshare.
You have to be able to manipulate it.To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any).Manipulate in the physical, not psychological or social sense, definitionally means to use your hands on it. It's derived from a Latin term meaning "handful."
But I guess your subtle, don't mind me hiding technique can involve waving your clenched fist at the crowd you don't want to suspect you of causing the spell effect.
You do not actually have to be holding your spell component pouch (in fact you are expected not to) nor do you have to have it hanging on your belt. Inside a pocket is a perfectly acceptable (and unable to be targeted) place to keep it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if it's V, S, M, you can just say and act out, "I've got one hand in my pocket, and the other's making a peace sign." [roll saves for Phantasmal Killer]
After doing the math on Conceal Spell it's pretty good - with 18 CHA and 16 DEX around Level 3 on a Sorcerer you've got pretty good chances with an effective DC 20 minimum, 21 if the spell has no somatic components. The lowest point comes just before you can take Improved Conceal Spell (which requires 2 feats and 5 ranks in a couple skills, leading you to believe it's intended for 5th-level characters at minimum, then throws in a 10 Sleight of Hand ranks requirement for some reason). It's easier for psychic casters who have no somatic components, especially a casting-focused Mesmerist who's got CHA-based spells.
I'm running a Psychic NPC in an upcoming campaign with Conceal Spell at Level 1 because human. With CHA as a secondary stat, they managed to get a DC 19-level check at Level 1. That's pretty solid.
After doing the math on Conceal Spell it's pretty good - with 18 CHA and 16 DEX around Level 3 on a Sorcerer you've got pretty good chances with an effective DC 20 minimum, 21 if the spell has no somatic components. The lowest point comes just before you can take Improved Conceal Spell (which requires 2 feats and 5 ranks in a couple skills, leading you to believe it's intended for 5th-level characters at minimum, then throws in a 10 Sleight of Hand ranks requirement for some reason). It's easier for psychic casters who have no somatic components, especially a casting-focused Mesmerist who's got CHA-based spells.
I'm running a Psychic NPC in an upcoming campaign with Conceal Spell at Level 1 because human. With CHA as a secondary stat, they managed to get a DC 19-level check at Level 1. That's pretty solid.
(Edit: Below is wrong except for the class skill bonus and feat bonus(es) from Deceitful and maybe Skill Focus if you take it.)
The bolded is wrong, look at the feat again. You add your skill ranks not your modifier. So the DC doesn't benefit from your attribute bonuses, your feat bonus from Deceitful (or a Skill Focus), or your class skill bonus. The best you can ever do for the DC is 15 + character level, and keep in mind that those trying to observe you do keep class skill bonuses, Wisdom bonus, and any racial or feat modifiers. It's not a great feat unless they errata that they meant to add modifier, not ranks.
Your italics are possibly wrong, I can't tell if you're aware that you have to do both checks if you have a somatic component, not just the lower DC for the somatic.
Cunning Caster, which is on the pfsrd, does benefit from those (and doesn't suffer a spell level penalty), and is absolutely better for a psychic caster without components. It's only ever one (opposed, rather than static against a DC) check, and doesn't suffer a spell level penalty, although it does take negatives for components. It's still going to be better for Sorcerers with decent other bonuses if their spell doesn't have too many components or other negative modifiers and their class skill and feat/attribute bonuses are substantial.
A high level V only spell (like Mass Suggestion with Eschew Materials) would definitely potentially be easier for a Sorcerer with Cunning Caster getting a +4 Deceitful, +3 Class skill, and whatever Charisma bonus vs. only a -4 component penalty and no -6 spell level penalty.
After doing the math on Conceal Spell it's pretty good - with 18 CHA and 16 DEX around Level 3 on a Sorcerer you've got pretty good chances with an effective DC 20 minimum, 21 if the spell has no somatic components. The lowest point comes just before you can take Improved Conceal Spell (which requires 2 feats and 5 ranks in a couple skills, leading you to believe it's intended for 5th-level characters at minimum, then throws in a 10 Sleight of Hand ranks requirement for some reason). It's easier for psychic casters who have no somatic components, especially a casting-focused Mesmerist who's got CHA-based spells.
I'm running a Psychic NPC in an upcoming campaign with Conceal Spell at Level 1 because human. With CHA as a secondary stat, they managed to get a DC 19-level check at Level 1. That's pretty solid.
The bolded is wrong, look at the feat again. You add your skill ranks not your modifier. So the DC doesn't benefit from your attribute bonuses, your feat bonus from Deceitful (or a Skill Focus), or your class skill bonus. The best you can ever do for the DC is 15 + character level, and keep in mind that those trying to observe you do keep class skill bonuses, Wisdom bonus, and any racial or feat modifiers. It's not a great feat unless they errata that they meant to add modifier, not ranks.
Cunning Caster, which is on the pfsrd, does benefit from those (and doesn't suffer a spell level penalty), and is absolutely better for a psychic caster without components. It's still going to be better for Sorcerers with decent other bonuses if their spell doesn't have too many components or other negative modifiers.
According to Ravingdork, Conceal Spell also give you Charisma bonus to the Bluff/Disguise based DC, and your Dexterity to the Sleight of Hand based DC. Is that not the case?
Ack, you're right, you do get the Cha modifier. I was remembering the skill class bonus and Deceitful bonus not applying. So Cunning Caster gets up to +7 from those sources, is a push on the Cha bonus, and gets a -4/8/12 penalty for components, but doesn't get a penalty from spell level, and is an opposed check rather than a "take 15" situation like Conceal. It also doesn't have the potential for two checks like Conceal does with Somatic. One opposed check that is a little worse odds is going to be better than two checks with slightly better odds.
Conceal makes a little more sense than I thought, but it's not a clear winner over Cunning depending on the specifics of your build. If they seem close, it's arguably better to go Cunning Caster and add Skill Focus (Bluff) for a another +6 rather than add Improved Cunning Caster to remove the spell level penalty that Cunning Caster doesn't have. Cunning Caster can also benefit from any items that boost your Bluff checks or any spells (if any) that do the same. (A Glibness potion, alas, wouldn't work, but Heroism would.) Cunning Caster also has synergy with Still/Silent spell if you were going to take them for other reasons anyway. And I guess it doesn't suffer from the extended casting time of Conceal, but I can't imagine why that would ever matter since the whole point of these feats is to avoid triggering combat so no one is going to be tracking that anyway at the scales involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
Except this only punishes PCs. If the sketchy enchanter wants to dominate a PC, he can take all the feat taxes and not suffer since he exists only for that purpose in the world. If a PC wants to do it... well he has to hamstring his whole build.