Why is it so hard to conceal spellcasting in Pathfinder?

[VRMH]

Ravingdork wrote:

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

Do not attribute to malice that which can equally well be explained by incompetence. ;)

[Caineach]

I love the idea. Not sure about implementation, will need to look it over more.

One of the most frustrating things I have found in game is trying to play an enchanter. Charm Person is a completely worthless spell in almost all circumstances. Trying to play a manipulator is impossible if everyone around you realizes that someone just got magically whammied by you.

[BigNorseWolf]

Caineach wrote:

I love the idea. Not sure about implementation, will need to look it over more.

One of the most frustrating things I have found in game is trying to play an enchanter. Charm Person is a completely worthless spell in almost all circumstances. Trying to play a manipulator is impossible if everyone around you realizes that someone just got magically whammied by you.

It really should be harder to take over a small kingdom than a first level spell.

[Ravingdork]

Charming people (even the king) will NOT let you take over the kingdom.

[Squiggit]

Yeah, charm person makes a target friendly. Trying to take over a kingdom after casting Charm Person just means you're more likely to get a slap on the back and a laugh about how silly you are rather than a public execution.

[Snowblind]

On the other hand, being the King's bestie will give you a lot of influence. He won't just hand you the keys to his kingdom on demand, but it will make things much, much easier if that's your goal.

[HyperMissingno]

And only for a limited time, it's an hour/level spell, not a day/level spell after all, and I imagine the king ain't gonna be too happy once it wears off.

[Azothath]

no, but using Hypnotism to suggest you are his (bastard) brother might work out better... unless he put down the last 3 such long lost claimants to the crown X^D ...

[Azothath]

thought experiment #1
A caster is in a gunnysack so we can just see his feet. He casts Fireball... of course it goes off in the sack, which disintegrates, and a fireball is seen.

Can it be identified?
You don't have direct LoS(line of sight) but the rules say Yes and clearly once the casting is complete it can be identified. Some GMs might impose a circumstance modifier and that seems fair.

Can it be counterspelled?
Yes. Again the caster with the readied action has to make the Spellcraft check and then have the appropriate spell.
It could also be dispelled as you don't need to know exactly what it is, just stop the magic from happening, but again readied action and a caster level check.

=====
thought experiment #2
make it a sealed wood box rather than a sack. This also cuts line of effect. In this case the fireball goes off in the box but you don't see anything as LoE is stopped.

Can it be identified?
You don't have LoS or LoE(line of effect)... so it is going to take a Perception check before you attempt the Spellcraft check. If you make that then it's possible, and likely circumstance modifiers. Detect Magic works through 1" of wood.

Can it be counterspelled?
No. Again the caster with the readied action has to make the Spellcraft check and then have the appropriate spell but lacks LoE.

[Ventnor]

Oh no. We can't solve a social situation with a single spell. Whatever will we do.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Ventnor wrote:

Oh no. We can't solve a social situation with a single spell. Whatever will we do.

What we do every night... TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

[Ventnor]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Oh no. We can't solve a social situation with a single spell. Whatever will we do.

What we do every night... TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

NARF!

[Ed Reppert]

Azothath: How do you counterspell or dispell retroactively? In your first scenario, you don't know a fireball spell is being cast until it goes off, and after that there's nothing to counter.

[Azothath]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Azothath: How do you counterspell or dispell retroactively? In your first scenario, you don't know a fireball spell is being cast until it goes off, and after that there's nothing to counter.

Your conclusion is correct based on your assumption, but that not the situation and the assumption is false. The counterspell or dispel does not happen retroactively.

It's 1) about game rules, 2) about information flow which relies somewhat on LoE and not only LoS. In the first example you can hear the caster, scent him, touch him (at a distance). Information can flow through the sack and later due to damage it does not stop line of effect. I did not want the sack to cut LoE but stop a clear view of the casting and most visual information. This would imply there's some rational to support the game rules as they exist. You can counter during the casting or dispel (let us say) simultaneously (or as an interrupt). That is also why the readied action is called out specifically as per the game rules.

The second case normal information flow is cut by the solid barrier. The barrier also cuts Los & LoE. I didn't want to broach Detect Magic or other special circumstances (such as having a magical sensor in with the target).

[Ed Reppert]

What assumption do you think I made?

[Quori]

Ravingdork wrote:

Charming people (even the king) will NOT let you take over the kingdom.

One of the many issues with choosing what to read, and what not to read, when it comes to material. Many people, for some reason, believe that it does.

For shame.

---
As for spellcasting, it should be hard to conceal. It requires concentration, hand movements, noise and visual identifiers (for almost every spell). It should be as easy to conceal as swinging a broadsword.

I like your idea of feat-ifying it though, down to the components of casting, but not the 'feeling' of it being cast (it's tangible identifier of the target). It would have to be a special ability of a focused class for me to buy into that kind of absolutely focused craft modification, but like the dominating focused classes of 3.5, or avoiding magical detection classes.

There's always that one thing outside the reach of feats, races, etc... when it comes to "being the best" at something, and classically, it was found at level 12+ in some prestige class. I think that's where it should stay, buried deep in a class/archetype. Removing all possible remnants of casting is too powerful, I think, if not for dedicating your life to the craft itself.

[The Shifty Mongoose]

Oh! There's something else that's been left out!

Secret Signs from the Inner Sea World Guide!

Of course, it only works on spells that have only S components, so you'd need Silent Spell unless you want to only cast stuff like Forced Quiet or Misdirection with your hand behind your back. It can be handy for the latter, though, and perhaps a surreptitious Pilfering Hand, if it wasn't for the fact that the pilfered object visibly floats toward you.

It also pits your Sleight of Hand against Perception to notice your spellcasting, and gives a penalty to Spellcraft to identify your spells.

It could work for Arcane Tricksters, Bards who plan to make good use out of those three spells, or people who think Secred Signs and Silent Spell are enough of a feat tax to cast a spell surreptitiously, preferably in time with a team-mate's distraction.

[Atarlost]

The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

It could work for Arcane Tricksters, Bards who plan to make good use out of those three spells, or people who think Secred Signs and Silent Spell are enough of a feat tax to cast a spell surreptitiously, preferably in time with a team-mate's distraction.

Bard spells always have verbal components so they can't use it.

[Caineach]

Atarlost wrote:

The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

It could work for Arcane Tricksters, Bards who plan to make good use out of those three spells, or people who think Secred Signs and Silent Spell are enough of a feat tax to cast a spell surreptitiously, preferably in time with a team-mate's distraction.

Bard spells always have verbal components so they can't use it.

Verbal components aren't defined as to what they are. There is no reason a bard shouldn't be able to hide his spell in a perform check.

[Atarlost]

Caineach wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

It could work for Arcane Tricksters, Bards who plan to make good use out of those three spells, or people who think Secred Signs and Silent Spell are enough of a feat tax to cast a spell surreptitiously, preferably in time with a team-mate's distraction.

Bard spells always have verbal components so they can't use it.

Verbal components aren't defined as to what they are. There is no reason a bard shouldn't be able to hide his spell in a perform check.

Like everything else that requires a feat and Secret Signs doesn't care whether you can hide your verbal components. It requires a spell to have only somatic components to be used at all.

[Joana]

Caineach wrote:

There is no reason a bard shouldn't be able to hide his spell in a perform check.

Except for the existence of this feat.

[HWalsh]

Caineach wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

It could work for Arcane Tricksters, Bards who plan to make good use out of those three spells, or people who think Secred Signs and Silent Spell are enough of a feat tax to cast a spell surreptitiously, preferably in time with a team-mate's distraction.

Bard spells always have verbal components so they can't use it.

Verbal components aren't defined as to what they are. There is no reason a bard shouldn't be able to hide his spell in a perform check.

You *see* the spell being cast in Pathfinder. Not HEAR it. The text under Spellcraft is clear on this. "See" so you can hide the verbal component of it all you want but it doesn't stop the light show.

[Azothath]

common assumptions in a magical world are going to cover most effects of spellcasting. When odd, sudden, and dramatic changes take place players and NPCs alike are going to assume something magical just happened and will be looking for the spellcaster. So I think most of the attempts to covertly cast spells are going to be thwarted under common circumstances.

So I think the topic mainly applies to spells with subtle effects, which are mainly the mind affecting group or illusions that duplicate acceptable reality or remove some sensory data while not under scrutiny.
An example would be casting Silent Image of the same thing that's already there. This would be a setup to going invisible the next round and moving. Notice that casting covertly just lets you do this while being observed and people aren't likely to notice anything amiss.

[CBDunkerson]

Why is it so hard to conceal stabbing in Pathfinder?

I mean... first you've got to sneak up without anyone seeing, smelling, hearing, tremorsensing, lifesensing, and whatever other wacky sensing they might have.

Then you've got to actually HIT the person... and they've got all that armor and deflective magic and what not.

And then... when you get through all that there is this ridiculous rule that they AUTOMATICALLY detect the stab. Oooh they feel 'pain'. I mean, how unfair is that? No matter WHAT you do to conceal it they just KNOW they've been stabbed!

Even OTHER people get perception checks because there are supposedly tell tale signs of the stabbing like 'blood' and 'screaming'. It's so obviously set up to just make it impossible to stab someone without anyone noticing!

[Saldiven]

CBDunkerson wrote:

Why is it so hard to conceal stabbing in Pathfinder?

I mean... first you've got to sneak up without anyone seeing, smelling, hearing, tremorsensing, lifesensing, and whatever other wacky sensing they might have.

Then you've got to actually HIT the person... and they've got all that armor and deflective magic and what not.

And then... when you get through all that there is this ridiculous rule that they AUTOMATICALLY detect the stab. Oooh they feel 'pain'. I mean, how unfair is that? No matter WHAT you do to conceal it they just KNOW they've been stabbed!

Even OTHER people get perception checks because there are supposedly tell tale signs of the stabbing like 'blood' and 'screaming'. It's so obviously set up to just make it impossible to stab someone without anyone noticing!

I wish these forums had a "like" button....

[Serghar Cromwell]

Saldiven wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Why is it so hard to conceal stabbing in Pathfinder?

I mean... first you've got to sneak up without anyone seeing, smelling, hearing, tremorsensing, lifesensing, and whatever other wacky sensing they might have.

Then you've got to actually HIT the person... and they've got all that armor and deflective magic and what not.

And then... when you get through all that there is this ridiculous rule that they AUTOMATICALLY detect the stab. Oooh they feel 'pain'. I mean, how unfair is that? No matter WHAT you do to conceal it they just KNOW they've been stabbed!

Even OTHER people get perception checks because there are supposedly tell tale signs of the stabbing like 'blood' and 'screaming'. It's so obviously set up to just make it impossible to stab someone without anyone noticing!

I wish these forums had a "like" button....

They do. See the + on the upper right of each post?

[Caineach]

Joana wrote:

Caineach wrote:

There is no reason a bard shouldn't be able to hide his spell in a perform check.

Except for the existence of this feat.

Why are you arguing that that somehow contradicts what I am saying? Its a feat I wasn't aware of, but is literally the designers already creating what I said should be able to be done. I think the combination of a feat tax, action requirement, bardic spell use, and contested perform check is a little overboard though.

[Saldiven]

Serghar Cromwell wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Why is it so hard to conceal stabbing in Pathfinder?

I mean... first you've got to sneak up without anyone seeing, smelling, hearing, tremorsensing, lifesensing, and whatever other wacky sensing they might have.

Then you've got to actually HIT the person... and they've got all that armor and deflective magic and what not.

And then... when you get through all that there is this ridiculous rule that they AUTOMATICALLY detect the stab. Oooh they feel 'pain'. I mean, how unfair is that? No matter WHAT you do to conceal it they just KNOW they've been stabbed!

Even OTHER people get perception checks because there are supposedly tell tale signs of the stabbing like 'blood' and 'screaming'. It's so obviously set up to just make it impossible to stab someone without anyone noticing!

I wish these forums had a "like" button....

They do. See the + on the upper right of each post?

Derp.

[Valcrist]

The argument against just using stealth to cast enchantments seems to be that they are attacks (I don't have my book right now but I'm pretty sure RAW they aren't, but assuming they are...) couldn't you just use the rules for snipping then? Even if someone gets a chance to see your "magical lightshow" they would still need to make the perception check.

[Valcrist]

So here's an example. Your 7th level party is trying to get into a warehouse, there is a lone guard standing out front. The party fighter walks up and asks for directions while the wizard, 80 feet away and hiding around a corner, casts improved invisibility. He then steps out and casts an Enlarged Charm Person. The guard gets a perception roll to notice, -5 for the fighter distracting and -8 for distance to target, at a net -13. The wizard makes a stealth check, -20 for sniping and +40 for being invisible and stationary, at a net +20. Odds are good the guard won't see him, unless he too is 7th level. All you have to hope for is a failed save...

Yeah it's a lot of arcane power to get past one guard, but it could be used just as easily in other situations. I feel the feats mentioned above are mostly for casting in a crowded room, and would in their own right be useful, but this is just an example. You wouldn't even need enlarge spell, it just adds a nice range boost and I'd like to see someone actually use it. There is also a halfing race trait that drops the sniping penalty from -20 to -10 that would be great for this type of thing.

Anyway, hope this adds to the conversation!

[HWalsh]

Valcrist wrote:

The argument against just using stealth to cast enchantments seems to be that they are attacks (I don't have my book right now but I'm pretty sure RAW they aren't, but assuming they are...) couldn't you just use the rules for snipping then? Even if someone gets a chance to see your "magical lightshow" they would still need to make the perception check.

Its because of what they want to use them for.

They don't want to conceal so they can snipe. They want to be in a casual conversation, cast Charm Person or Dominate Person, etc, onto them and then "win" socially. They don't want to have massive flares of magical light that lashes out and smacks into their target's forehead and then for him to support them. That defeats pretty much the whole deal.

[Tacticslion]

It's also a problem with creatures with racial SLAs that are me at to do exactly that thing. Succubi go from, "Oh, wow, that's horrifyingly dangerous. And no one knows." to "Everyone says: Ah! Kill it without fire!"

On the other hand, the light show causes a host of tropes to be problematic and denied in-game. That vizier leaning on his rod sure is glowing a lot. That "invisible" imp sure does light up like a christsmas tree in a very specific location right there with those swirly things. There is an invisible guy over there with illusion patterns swirling around him just before these especially unlikely monsters just start showing up - gee, I wonder what's happening. Sorry guys, although I was invisible, I decided to use a potion.

While it doesn't kill everything, anything tricky - used for, by, or against the PCs - is extremely hampered by this ruling. You have questions regarding interactions with items, spell-like abilities, invisibility, and other effects. It makes the value of, say arcane sight much lower, and it tacks on something that has never been written into the rules from the first publication of 3E to present in PF. More than that, it explicitly ruins several encounters with NPCs that Paizo has published.

Casters have a lot of power - a lot of power - but this forces them to lose all semblance of a sneaky caster. I mean, people have mentioned the art as a reference source, but no one has mentioned that it's not just the hand-halos, but also the eyes that glow with power (sometimes). These are large and heavy-handed displays of power. The wizard might as well go; "HEY, EVERYONE. THIS IS AN ILLUSION, I'M MAKING AN ILLUSION NOW, OKAY?!" or something similar with enchantment.

The displays don't really matter for evokes (obvious), though it could impact conjures (not too worried, as they have the nicest things) and some transmuters (again, not too worried, as well as diviners and necromancers (making subtle buffs/debuffs problematic).

While none of those are inherently bad, it still restricts play style. A servant of a god of subtlety isn't, no matter how much he sinks into it. Enchanters and illusionist declare their every move. Druids and rangers negate some of their own class features and tropes to give themselves away. Rogues and Monks with talents or archetypes are glowing balls of runic power. Arcane tricksters are an extremely obvious class. And so on.

[Ravingdork]

Tacticslion wrote:

A servant of a god of subtlety isn't, no matter how much he sinks into it.

I can just see it now...

PAIZO: "Oh no worries. We have an archetype for that! You just need to buy our new splat book to get it. (A splat book, which wouldn't even be necessary at all, if we hadn't halfheartedly made up these new barely-explained unwritten rules to help us sell more products.)"

[QuidEst]

Trying to kill a succubus with fire is not going to be very productive.

[Tacticslion]

QuidEst wrote:

Trying to kill a succubus with fire is not going to be very productive.

It's true!

Hence,

me wrote:

"Everyone says: Ah! Kill it without fire!"

:)

[Tacticslion]

Tacticslion wrote:

A servant of a god of subtlety isn't, no matter how much he sinks into it.

Ravingdork wrote:

I can just see it now...

PAIZO: "Oh no worries. We have an archetype for that! You just need to buy our new splat book to get it. (A splat book, which wouldn't even be necessary at all, if we hadn't halfheartedly made up these new barely-explained unwritten rules to help us sell more products.)"

I think Paizo is, over-all, actually pretty great about most things.

In fact, their use of the open gaming license makes it pleasantly free.

I do think that sometimes they overly-rule things, or make rulings that are excessively counter-intuitive. While the art is incredible, and important, as it often brings the world to life, I do also think that, occasionally, it's overly-adhered to; but WAR, at least they chose a solid guy to go with!

(I just kind of wish that, if they wanted the art to reflect the game, they adhered to their maps a bit better... but being dyslexic, I can totally understand those particular errors...)

[Ravingdork]

Tacticslion wrote:

I think Paizo is, over-all, actually pretty great about most things.

Despite my occasional complaints, they really are head and shoulders above everyone else for a great many reasons.

Tacticslion wrote:

I do think that sometimes they overly-rule things, or make rulings that are excessively counter-intuitive.

I totally agree!

[blashimov]

Did anyone mention http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/spellsong yet?

[Deadmanwalking]

Oooh! I disagree with Tacticslion. That never happens. This should be interesting.

Tacticslion wrote:

It's also a problem with creatures with racial SLAs that are me at to do exactly that thing. Succubi go from, "Oh, wow, that's horrifyingly dangerous. And no one knows." to "Everyone says: Ah! Kill it without fire!"

Well, the thing about that is that, firstly, Succubi usually use their absurd social abilities rather than their mind-control mojo right up until people are actually trying to kill them. Secondly, the light-show is only when you cast the spell, not while you maintain it, so they can keep people in thrall without alerting them if you just enthrall them...privately (not a hard situation for a Succubus to arrange), and thirdly, nobody without Spellcraft (ie: most people) can tell what the succubus is casting, just that they cast something...and Charm spells inherently mean they put the best interpretation on your actions, so they'll buy any explanation you like if you've successfully Charmed them.

But what if they succeed at the Save, you might say? Well, people succeeding at the Save and realizing the succubus just tried to control their mind is very in-theme...though also very rare, given their ludicrous Save DC.

So Succubus modus operandi when they want to perform an act of mind control is as follows:

1. Seduce victim.
2. Wait until victim is asleep.
3. Cast spell while they sleep. Being an SLA, it's silent and still so it likely won't wake them. Succeeding at the Save might, but see above.

That actually sounds super appropriate to me.

Tacticslion wrote:

On the other hand, the light show causes a host of tropes to be problematic and denied in-game. That vizier leaning on his rod sure is glowing a lot. That "invisible" imp sure does light up like a christsmas tree in a very specific location right there with those swirly things. There is an invisible guy over there with illusion patterns swirling around him just before these especially unlikely monsters just start showing up - gee, I wonder what's happening. Sorry guys, although I was invisible, I decided to use a potion.

Example-by-example:

The Vizier is almost certainly gonna have one of the concealed casting feats we're discussing here. I mean, that's his whole schtick, why wouldn't he?

The Imp has almost no combat spells, and none that don't break invisibility and identify its location anyway (all it has is Suggestion, which requires verbal commands and is an attack).

Only people with high Spellcraft have any idea those are 'illusion patterns'...and spellcasters can Summon monsters. So most people will just assume he summoned it for real in most cases.

I'm also not at all clear that the symbols identify what square an invisible person is in (they appear in the air and identify a spell being cast, but I'm not sure at all they always do so in a particular place in relation to the caster), and even if they do, he can then move, so...not as big a deal as all that.

Tacticslion wrote:

While it doesn't kill everything, anything tricky - used for, by, or against the PCs - is extremely hampered by this ruling. You have questions regarding interactions with items, spell-like abilities, invisibility, and other effects. It makes the value of, say arcane sight much lower, and it tacks on something that has never been written into the rules from the first publication of 3E to present in PF. More than that, it explicitly ruins several encounters with NPCs that Paizo has published.

Such as? I'm not thinking of any ruined encounters, and I've looked through several APs.

As for items, spell-like abilities, and the like I don't think it's especially unclear. Magic is flashy by default unless you know how to hide it. It's not technically a light source, so people can't see it in the dark, and they can't magically see it through walls, which both help and give some options, too.

As for Arcane Sight, that primarily lets you see ongoing spells, which is not the default, and is super-useful. Spells are only visible while being cast, not thereafter.

As for this being a change in policy...I don't think it's an intentional one. I think this is a clarification of how the people at Paizo were always assuming things worked. As others have noted, Spellcraft has always allowed you to see what a Silent Still spell was while it was being cast...this sort of thing is the only logical explanation for that.

Tacticslion wrote:

Casters have a lot of power - a lot of power - but this forces them to lose all semblance of a sneaky caster. I mean, people have mentioned the art as a reference source, but no one has mentioned that it's not just the hand-halos, but also the eyes that glow with power (sometimes). These are large and heavy-handed displays of power. The wizard might as well go; "HEY, EVERYONE. THIS IS AN ILLUSION, I'M MAKING AN ILLUSION NOW, OKAY?!" or something similar with enchantment.

No. In neither case is the school of magic visible to anyone except those with Spellcraft (like it's always been). Nor is the level of the spell. It's clear something is being cast, but what? Could be Wish or Prestidigitation, without Spellcraft you have no idea.

Tacticslion wrote:

The displays don't really matter for evokes (obvious), though it could impact conjures (not too worried, as they have the nicest things) and some transmuters (again, not too worried, as well as diviners and necromancers (making subtle buffs/debuffs problematic).

Not really for buffs anyway. They mean you need to place those buffs privately if you don't want people to know, is all. Debuffs not being subtle has always been a bit of an issue since someone who Saves always knew something happened.

Tacticslion wrote:

While none of those are inherently bad, it still restricts play style. A servant of a god of subtlety isn't, no matter how much he sinks into it. Enchanters and illusionist declare their every move. Druids and rangers negate some of their own class features and tropes to give themselves away. Rogues and Monks with talents or archetypes are glowing balls of runic power. Arcane tricksters are an extremely obvious class. And so on.

Uh...he can be super subtle. That's what the Feats being discussed are for. The servant of a God of subtlety seems way more likely to take them than a lot of other people.

And there's no indications that casting inherently breaks Stealth. It does if using Verbal components due to the 'speaking loudly' thing, but that's always been the case. But the glowing rune thing? If they don't spot you behind the tree, they don't spot that behind the tree either. It's only if they can see you (or at least know you're there) that they spot the spell.

The purpose of this ruling, and its mechanical effects, are pretty much purely on people who are trying to cast in social settings, not those trying to cast while hidden.

[Tacticslion]

I have no time to reply to most, but...

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Uh...he can be super subtle. That's what the Feats being discussed are for. The servant of a God of subtlety seems way more likely to take them than a lot of other people.

... how? He explicitly can't hide his light show.

Also, their point of reference (and proof) is the art. If the art is correct, it must produce obvious, visible light - it can be seen glowing, reflected off of surfaces, and changing the local light-gradient in subtle ways within those pictures. If it does not do that, the art is incorrect and can't be used as proof of anything (except that literal artistic licence was used, and any utility it has for example is dubious at best).

Otherwise, you made some solid points I look forward to replying to! :D

EDIT: Oh, and I can think of several off-hand: at least two different places in Serpent Skull, item usage in Kingmaker, early on in Carrion Crown, and (I believe) once in Curse. I'll look these up to verify, when I can (I lack time, at present), but if I'm wrong I'll at least mention when and where and how! :D

[Atarlost]

According to the art hide armor has a bare midriff and barbarians with 8 charisma are cheesecakes.

If anything I would take magic lights in the art as undeniable proof that they don't exist.

[Deadmanwalking]

Tacticslion wrote:

I have no time to reply to most, but...

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Uh...he can be super subtle. That's what the Feats being discussed are for. The servant of a God of subtlety seems way more likely to take them than a lot of other people.

... how? He explicitly can't hide his light show.

Cunning Caster and Conceal Spell both hide the 'light show' (Conceal Spell is even super explicit about it). He needs one of those to do it, but he can.

Tacticslion wrote:

Also, their point of reference (and proof) is the art. If the art is correct, it must produce obvious, visible light - it can be seen glowing, reflected off of surfaces, and changing the local light-gradient in subtle ways within those pictures. If it does not do that, the art is incorrect and can't be used as proof of anything (except that literal artistic licence was used, and any utility it has for example is dubious at best).

The art doesn't show them being very bright, in terms of light-source. I think it's pretty clear that they appear in the air and that, if there's light to see, you can see them. There's no evidence they provide any light of their own, though. They look sorta like light, but they're magic. They are symbols that appear in thin air when magic is being performed. They may be brightly colored, but there's no evidence they produce light in the conventional sense.

You can certainly spot them, but the lighting rules don't say it's easier to spot spell-casting than it is anything else, nor do the stealth rules, nor any other rules. I think it's pretty clear you need to already be looking in that direction to spot 'em.

Tacticslion wrote:

Otherwise, you made some solid points I look forward to replying to! :D

Thanks. :)

Tacticslion wrote:

EDIT: Oh, and I can think of several off-hand: at least two different places in Serpent Skull, item usage in Kingmaker, early on in Carrion Crown, and (I believe) once in Curse. I'll look these up to verify, when I can (I lack time, at present), but if I'm wrong I'll at least mention when and where and how! :D

Please do. I don't know about Kingmaker or Carrion Crown (I'm still hoping to maybe play one of those), but I've read through Serpent's Skull, and just finished running CotCT and don't remember anything like that.

[Milo v3]

Tacticslion wrote:

... how? He explicitly can't hide his light show.

What gives you this idea at all? The very first post of this thread talks about a method to hide the light show as does the text excerpt that you quoted....

[Tacticslion]

Tacticslion wrote:

... how? He explicitly can't hide his light show.

Milo v3 wrote:

What gives you this idea at all? The very first post of this thread talks about a method to hide the light show as does the text excerpt that you quoted....

Sorry, poor word choice.

He can "conceal" it - but how is the question.

If it's supposed to make sense within its own context it's not doing that.

As to being a light source,

glow in the dark

see it reflect off of her hair

obviously altering the light around him (but it's unclear if that's the effect or the casting)

obviously altering the light around him

All of those are brighter than a candle.

The patterns were not all that I meant.

The feat "lets you do that" without explaining how. This is an issue, because it doesn't tell you about how it interacts with any other rules. It even calls out the fact that if there's a display, that display is obvious, it's just not obvious that you created it - which makes no sense, as it means the display must cease to exist or not impact its environment in any noticeable way... in which case that line doesn't refer to the spellcasting... how is it an inherent part of the spellcasting?

If the answer is "You just do." that doesn't reflect the general ethos presented within the rest of the system - there is almost always a side explanation for what, exactly, is happening, in the mechanics themselves.

My posit wasn't that the mechanics were wrong, but simply asking, how do they work. We know how someone swings a sword, doesn't speak (silent spell), and doesn't move their arms around (still spell) - how do you conceal glowing runes around your hands and lighting up like a few candles?

I was going to go over art and encounters, but in writing it up, I ran out of time.

[Deadmanwalking]

Tacticslion wrote:

Sorry, poor word choice.

He can "conceal" it - but how is the question.

If it's supposed to make sense within its own context it's not doing that.

He hides them somewhere, pretty obviously. The whole point of the Feat is that you're good at misdirection. Presumably that includes manipulating where and in what size and context those glyphs appear.

Tacticslion wrote:

As to being a light source,

The patterns were not all that I meant.

In those last two, I'm not sure at all that the spell he's casting isn't 'Light'. Or that he doesn't have Light cast and is casting something else.

The second one, I'm well over 90% sure that the spell she's casting is actually Searing Light. Which, well, makes light.

The first one is the best evidence, but since Light is 0-level, she could have that cast on her hand to provide light to see by to cast the healing spell she's clearly doing.

In short, most times a caster in art is visibly lit up, there's no reason the light couldn't be from the cantrip Light.

Tacticslion wrote:

The feat "lets you do that" without explaining how. This is an issue, because it doesn't tell you about how it interacts with any other rules. It even calls out the fact that if there's a display, that display is obvious, it's just not obvious that you created it - which makes no sense, as it means the display must cease to exist or not impact its environment in any noticeable way... in which case that line doesn't refer to the spellcasting... how is it an inherent part of the spellcasting?

For 'obvious displays' it's talking about fireballs and the like. you can cast fireball with Conceal Spell and the 'magic runes' won't appear and nobody will know you cast it, but it still creates a giant fiery explosion. Likewise, if you use Conceal Spell on a summoning spell, a creature still appears out of nowhere.

That's what it means by 'creating an obvious effect'. It even specifically uses fireball as an example.

Now, as for how you conceal the 'magic runes', that probably varies from caster to caster, since it's a special effect and people are allowed to fiddle with those. My personal favorite is that they still appear, just at a tiny size, and you have enough control to make them appear on a surface, like the page of the book you're faking reading, or the interior of your pocket.

Tacticslion wrote:

If the answer is "You just do." that doesn't reflect the general ethos presented within the rest of the system - there is almost always a side explanation for what, exactly, is happening, in the mechanics themselves.

I dunno. The mechanics are pretty lose when it comes to aesthetics. You can't make functional changes in things, but I'm pretty sure your fireball can just be blue colored and that works fine.

and that's what any particular method of hiding the sigils is. Aesthetics.

Tacticslion wrote:

My posit wasn't that the mechanics were wrong, but simply asking, how do they work. We know how someone swings a sword, doesn't speak (silent spell), and doesn't move their arms around (still spell) - how do you conceal glowing runes around your hands and lighting up like a few candles?

I've suggested at least one way above. I'm sure others can come up with other possibilities.

Tacticslion wrote:

I was going to go over art and encounters, but in writing it up, I ran out of time.

Totally cool, man. I'm still curious about those encounters, though.

[Tacticslion]

I was wrong about at least two of the encounters in CotCT (the spells were all pre-cast), and spell-art-evidence is both scarce and conflicting (in my opinion, at least). I'm not sure if I'll have time/memory to get back to it today, but I'll try. (A toddler, four-year-old, and attention deficit can consume a surprising amount of one's time...)

As far as aesthetics... yes and no. In this case it's an aesthetic with a clear mechanical impact that's being discussed. What the mechanic looks like may be irrelevant, but it's their and functional... and the art is being used as a, "See this thing." for proof/explanation. In a similar way, it doesn't matter that Verbal Components aren't specified other than "a strong clear voice" if they are removed entirely... if you have runes floating at a foot-wide circle around your hands, this isn't something you can "conceal" nor is the actual light itself. This is what my problem is and what I was alluding to... the how. If the rules are so explicit as to say, "Your spells do this thing; that's why this hard coded thing." than it needs to also come with an example of four of how that thing is concealed. Otherwise, we're only left to guess at what they meant, which is not the way the d20 rules are designed, in-general. Compare this one fiddly weird addition to, say, anything else with its similar obsession to detail. Even the ever-vague spell components, their pouches, and material components has a more obsessive attention-to-detail than "Art has examples of how it's always worked. But you can conceal this now without making it go away."

As for the spell, light... that... is a weak, "maybe it's this" because the same explanation can be used for almost anything at all, barring explicit dev input, which means rules clarifications are in order. Which all we've recieved is, "See: art." except you've just pointed out how that can't be known what they're doing or why it's behaving that way. And... if she did cast light prior to casting a healing spell... where are her healing spell runs/glow/display-things? The evidence that's supposed to be self-evident in that case opposes itself.

(And if that last purple thing is, in fact, light, it's the most epic and weird casting of light I've ever seen in a game-like setting; and its exceptionally useless in that moment to boot - unless the artist was trying to have them in the middle of a "whooooooppppsss~!" which is not how the scene looks to be trying to play to me at all.)

Blarg! Time! Later!

[Vanykrye]

My issue with this is "Oh, the vizier skulking behind the throne obviously has this feat to allow him to cast all sneaky." Ok...great...how did he do that prior to the publication of this book, when we all agree (I admittedly assume) that he should have been able to do that?

[Tacticslion]

That's right! I pointed this out last night, reference the art, but haven't posted the thing, yet. I'm uncertain if my earlier post from today is coherent or not. Sorry if not.

#postinginacarline/gettingkidsdressed/acquiring-and-shoving-breakfast-into- 'em/thisisarelonghashtag...

[Deadmanwalking]

Tacticslion wrote:

I was wrong about at least two of the encounters in CotCT (the spells were all pre-cast), and spell-art-evidence is both scarce and conflicting (in my opinion, at least). I'm not sure if I'll have time/memory to get back to it today, but I'll try. (A toddler, four-year-old, and attention deficit can consume a surprising amount of one's time...)

Totally understandable. But yeah, I just ran through that one and don't remember anything like that.

Tacticslion wrote:

As far as aesthetics... yes and no. In this case it's an aesthetic with a clear mechanical impact that's being discussed. What the mechanic looks like may be irrelevant, but it's their and functional... and the art is being used as a, "See this thing." for proof/explanation. In a similar way, it doesn't matter that Verbal Components aren't specified other than "a strong clear voice" if they are removed entirely... if you have runes floating at a foot-wide circle around your hands, this isn't something you can "conceal" nor is the actual light itself.

Except we know for a fact, by the rules, that spells don't provide light. Art where it does is...incorrect. That's definitionally true due to the way the lighting rules work and the fact that spells don't do stuff they say they don't.

I definitely agree that more information on what spells are supposed to look like, and how Conceal Spell functions would be super nice and useful, I just don't think it's necessary or that the Feat somehow fails to function without them.

Tacticslion wrote:

This is what my problem is and what I was alluding to... the how. If the rules are so explicit as to say, "Your spells do this thing; that's why this hard coded thing." than it needs to also come with an example of four of how that thing is concealed. Otherwise, we're only left to guess at what they meant, which is not the way the d20 rules are designed, in-general. Compare this one fiddly weird addition to, say, anything else with its similar obsession to detail. Even the ever-vague spell components, their pouches, and material components has a more obsessive attention-to-detail than "Art has examples of how it's always worked. But you can conceal this now without making it go away."

True enough, but it seems easy enough to visualize to me.

Tacticslion wrote:

As for the spell, light... that... is a weak, "maybe it's this" because the same explanation can be used for almost anything at all, barring explicit dev input, which means rules clarifications are in order. Which all we've recieved is, "See: art." except you've just pointed out how that can't be known what they're doing or why it's behaving that way. And... if she did cast light prior to casting a healing spell... where are her healing spell runs/glow/display-things? The evidence that's supposed to be self-evident in that case opposes itself.

I'm not saying that they're always casting light, I'm saying if they've already got it cast, it might make their other spells glow. Mos casters have light and have it cast pretty close to all the time while adventuring.

Tacticslion wrote:

(And if that last purple thing is, in fact, light, it's the most epic and weird casting of light I've ever seen in a game-like setting; and its exceptionally useless in that moment to boot - unless the artist was trying to have them in the middle of a "whooooooppppsss~!" which is not how the scene looks to be trying to play to me at all.)

I don't think the last one is him casting light (that was the third one), but it might be an explicitly light-causing spell like Daylight, given that it's a burst of light driving back shadow-creatures.

Tacticslion wrote:

Blarg! Time! Later!.

Cool. Later.

Vanykrye wrote:

My issue with this is "Oh, the vizier skulking behind the throne obviously has this feat to allow him to cast all sneaky." Ok...great...how did he do that prior to the publication of this book, when we all agree (I admittedly assume) that he should have been able to do that?

He used Cunning Caster.

Before that, he used GM fiat (or something homebrew), or was a Bard using Spellsong...all assuming he was casting spells in front of people (which is a big assumption, actually, Jafar never did it for example).

[ellann]

It is not difficult at all. Take a human sorcerer with a psychic bloodline, deceitful and cunning caster as 1st level feats, silver tongued alternate racial trait, tattooed sorcerer archetype to grab a viper familiar and nonchalant thuggery social trait. Take 1 rank in bluff.

So, +1(rank)+3(class skill)+5(CHA)+2(deceitful)+2(silver tongued)+3(viper familiar)+4(nonchalant thuggery)=+20 on bluff check (+16 if a spell has an obvious effect) opposed by perception to keep others from noticing that you cast the spell. Perception also gets a penalty for distance (-1 per 10'). All at level 1.