Surreptitious casting, AP#110

[Wheldrake]

Bonjour,

I know this topic has been discussed (ad nauseum) recently on the forums, but it came up again, in of all places Adventure Path #110, the Thrushmoor Terror.

The Thrushmoor Terror:

p37: "D. attempts to surreptitously cast suggestion to magically encourage the PC (...) to sit down and have a drink..."

Since the NPC in question has none of the special feats that allow hidden casting, this seems like an attempt that will automatically fail, given the recent ruling on flashing lights and glyphs that accompany spellcasting.

I would have kind of expected a recent adventure path release to respect recent rulings... but that doesn't appear to be the case. PCs will automatically see that a spell is being cast, without recourse to one of the tricky feats meant to mask spellcasting, right?

Alternatively, this line from AP#110 may be evidence of alternative views on the ability to cast spells surreptitiously without recourse to those pesky feats on the part of Paizo developers.

[Rysky]

"attempts to surreptitiously cast" being the key phrase here.

[wraithstrike]

Even without the glyphs if the spell is cast directly in front of the PC's it will still be recognized unless the caster is invisible.

[Rysky]

So cast when they aren't looking?

[Wheldrake]

Suggestion has only verbal and material components, and like all sorcerers the NPC in question has eschew materials, so without the ruling on the magical light show, she only has to deal with the verbal component.

One could easily imagine using the bluff skill to mask a "spoken incantation" in normal conversation. Something like "Please, let me serve you some of this delightful Spectro Petronum wine!" or similar.

But the new ruling on the arcane light show makes that impossible, and makes the wording of the paragraph, "attempts to surreptitiously cast", entirely specious, since there is a zero percent chance of her casting not being noticed as a spell, even barring a successful spellcraft roll.

Personally, I prefer the angle offered by AP#110 to the recent faq on arcane manifestations. Since I play in home games, not PFS, that means everybody's happy. But still, I find it slightly annoying that the kind folks at Paizo can't get their story straight on something as profoundly essential to the basic workings of magic. I mean, all they'd have had to do was give the NPC one of those clever magic-hiding feats, and there'd be no ambiguity.

[CBDunkerson]

Yeah, I really don't see how the clarification on spellcraft checks changes anything in this example. To cast surreptiously he'd need to be unobserved... which applies whether there are glowy lights or 'just' honeycomb, snake tongue, and speaking magic words.

[Rysky]

If you keep assuming it's an arcane light-up show then yeah it will fail as you describe it.

But manifestations can be anything.

And as for the suggestion wording you wouldn't even need the "spectro petronum" part since exact wording isn't spelled out for verbal components so they also could be anything.

"Would you like some wine?" said when the PC's are looking at his partner.

There, spell cast.

[VRMH]

Rysky wrote:

"Would you like some wine?" said when the PC's are looking at his partner.

There, spell cast.

And all the PCs get their spellcraft check, because... reasons.

[wraithstrike]

Wheldrake, you only need line of sight to notice a spell is being cast, and you also need line of sight to select a target. How is he casting suggestion on someone without the person actively observing him unless he is invisible or has some other magical ability in play?

[Rysky]

VRMH wrote:

Rysky wrote:

"Would you like some wine?" said when the PC's are looking at his partner.

There, spell cast.

And all the PCs get their spellcraft check, because... reasons.

No, no they don't.

It's not spell"sense", you have to see the person doing the casting or the spell.

Someone casting a spell like suggestion when you aren't looking them would not entitle you a spellcraft like you assume the FaQ says.

[Wheldrake]

Hmmm. Guess I shouldn't have tried to crosspost to the Strange Aeons forum, all the action is going to be here.

OK, Rysky, I'll bite.

Faq on arcane manifestations:

Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.

So yeah, it doesn't specifically say there is an arcane light show, but the art strongly suggests it. What is does say is that "these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated" and then mentions "special abilities" which do allow surreptitious casting. The strong inference is that without such "special abilities" there is no game mechanic allowing it.

I like the new bluff usage from the Spymaster's Handbook, but even that doesn't appear to address arcane manifestations.

[Rysky]

Pathfinder art strongly suggests plenty of things.

None of which is outright rules.

And you are inferring way too strongly, since the bit afterwards says "but they will always provide an onlooker" as in someone watching them.

Just because the art, being, ya'know, art, shows a lot of effects for the viewer's benefit doesn't mean an actual caster causes a whole cutscene every time they want to cast a spell in game.

[Claxon]

Can we all just say that the particular individual who wrote that section was probably unaware of the ruling? Tito Leati appears to be the author and appears not to write that much for Paizo, so it's possible that they were unaware of the clarification. Although editors should have caught the mistake.

If people are trying to use this as an excuse to say the FAQ isn't valid...just stop. It's valid. I know you hate it, but someone making an error in an AP isn't grounds to say the FAQ is invalid.

[ryric]

That FAQ is recent enough that this AP issue was probably already at the printer by the time it was resolved. My guess is that the author thought things worked differently than the FAQ eventually clarified.

The easiest fix would be to give the NPC one of the new abilities that allows concealed casting.

[Rysky]

I don't really think "attempts to surreptitously cast" is much of an error, if at all.

[Rysky]

ryric wrote:

That FAQ is recent enough that this AP issue was probably already at the printer by the time it was resolved. My guess is that the author thought things worked differently than the FAQ eventually clarified.

The easiest fix would be to give the NPC one of the new abilities that allows concealed casting.

I wouldn't consider a year old recent.

While the new abilities would help yes there's nothing stopping him from simply casting when he thinks no one is paying attention to him.

[Wheldrake]

I tend to agree with you, Claxon, and was willing to let sleeping hellhounds lie... until I came across that line from AP#110.

It would be easy enough to retcon the NPC from that AP, so as to give her "concealed casting", and that would totally fit with the character - nasty aristocratic cultist and all.

Rysky's mention of the caveat "but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse" still refers specifically to the use of a "special ability" which the NPC doesn't have, as written.

I'm strongly tempted to use the "perform inconspicuous action" mechanic from the new bluff rules in the Spymaster's handbook to allow surreptitious casting in the case of spells with only a verbal component... but given the faq on arcane manifestations it seems like that would constitute a houserule. I mean, that mechanic has a lot of language in common with the "concealed casting" feat.

I guess the real question is why Paizo felt the need to lock concealed casting behind a feat. I guess the answer is right there in the faq: to prevent non-spellcasters from abuse from the godlike spellcasters mucking about during non-combat situations.

[Rysky]

You're reading way too far into the FaQ.

If someone is off in the corner of the room and someone casts a subtle spell like suggestion it doesn't mean everyone immediately stops what they're doing and turns to the caster pointing and hissing "SPELL!"

You have to see the manifestations to make a spellcraft roll for it.

[Claxon]

I mean, the reason the FAQ was issued is so that unless you spend a feat you don't get to secretly cast spells and have no one notice. It was intentionally done to limit the power of spell casters in non-combat situations.

[Rysky]

Yes, "secretly".

Just because someone isn't looking at you doesn't mean you're trying to be secretive.

You do not need a feat to cast spells when other people aren't looking at you.

[skizzerz]

Couple of things (spoilered because it gives info about this particular NPC)

Strange Aeons:

The caster is a sorcerer with the psychic bloodline, which means her spells are all psychic spells and not arcane spells. As such, suggestion is cast using thought and emotion components instead of verbal and material components. This steps around the issue that verbal components are made using a loud, clear voice which is really hard to just weave into a conversation without being awkward. The manifestations are still an issue though, so let's address that now.

The Conceal Spell feat does what we want, but it has a prerequisite of Deceitful. This means we'd need to swap out two feats. Conceal Spell has a prerequisite of 1 rank of Bluff, Disguise, and Sleight of Hand; of which she only has Bluff. Reallocating a point of Sense Motive and Perception into the missing skills seems apt. Then we can swap out Skill Focus (Bluff) with Deceitful and something else (maybe Dodge? although her AC is already pretty low) with Conceal Spell.

With the feat, all that the PCs will notice is that she is thinking really hard about something for a round; although they can get a Perception, Sense Motive, or Spellcraft check to notice (whichever is higher) at a +3 bonus. Since the check is automatic, I'd roll it for them behind the screen so they can't metagame the knowledge they just made a check. The check would be DC 25, and succeeding just lets them know she is casting a spell, they'd still need to make another check to figure out what.

Alternatively, as Rysky said, just have her cast it out of the way of the PCs, such that they aren't actively paying attention to her at the time. Maybe a passive Perception check (taking 10) to notice the manifestations in that case, or have her chug a potion of invisibility first after stepping around a corner (bluffing that she needs to step into some other room to get something for them, and she'll be right back).

[Rysky]

*nods*

And d'oh! The female is the caster, I was getting them mixed up >_<

[Saldiven]

Have the NPC excuse herself to get some drinks. She walks out the door, but leaves it slightly ajar. Before entering back into the room, she peers through the crack between door and frame to target the PC for her spell.

This is just an example, but other such situations would suffice.

[wraithstrike]

Saldiven wrote:

Have the NPC excuse herself to get some drinks. She walks out the door, but leaves it slightly ajar. Before entering back into the room, she peers through the crack between door and frame to target the PC for her spell.

This is just an example, but other such situations would suffice.

I think this could work since it would allow her to get a stealth check. I don't know if the book map has that option since I have only skimmed it.

However, when you cast a spell you are speaking in a strong voice and the DC for hearing someone is 0+the modifier for distance. It is likely to be no more than a DC 3(assuming 30 feet of distance) to notice the casting.

[Wheldrake]

Et voilà!

Saldiven, that's just the thing. Arcane manifestations appear in the other room, unseen by the players, they get no spellcraft check or even notion that a spell has been cast. Her voice (and line of effect) is enough for the spell to work.

"You really want to try some of this wine, it's a special vintage from one of Ustalav's finest vinyards."

This said (and I missed the psychic bloodline element that Skizzers pointed out) I would think that psychic spells should be able to opt out of the arcane manifestations rule. It all comes down to how far the DM wants to houserule them out of existence for specific circumstances, like psychic spells, spells without visible components or even invisible spellcasters.

I can see that this issue is going to come up again and again. There are so many possible cases of extenuating circumstances, especially once crafty players start trying to finesse their surreptitious castings. <g>

[Saldiven]

wraithstrike wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Have the NPC excuse herself to get some drinks. She walks out the door, but leaves it slightly ajar. Before entering back into the room, she peers through the crack between door and frame to target the PC for her spell.

This is just an example, but other such situations would suffice.

I think this could work since it would allow her to get a stealth check. I don't know if the book map has that option since I have only skimmed it.

However, when you cast a spell you are speaking in a strong voice and the DC for hearing someone is 0+the modifier for distance. It is likely to be no more than a DC 3(assuming 30 feet of distance) to notice the casting.

As pointed out by someone else, this is a Psychic Bloodline Sorcerer, so the spell doesn't have a verbal component.

[wraithstrike]

Saldiven wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Have the NPC excuse herself to get some drinks. She walks out the door, but leaves it slightly ajar. Before entering back into the room, she peers through the crack between door and frame to target the PC for her spell.

This is just an example, but other such situations would suffice.

I think this could work since it would allow her to get a stealth check. I don't know if the book map has that option since I have only skimmed it.

However, when you cast a spell you are speaking in a strong voice and the DC for hearing someone is 0+the modifier for distance. It is likely to be no more than a DC 3(assuming 30 feet of distance) to notice the casting.

As pointed out by someone else, this is a Psychic Bloodline Sorcerer, so the spell doesn't have a verbal component.

They still have line of sight. A cracked door does not change that since it only provides cover, so they still get a perception check. It is just opposed by a stealth check vs the voice DC I gave above. I would modify the NPC to have a decent stealth check in order to get the spell off if the GM does not want to change any feats out.

Longer version: 5 foot step from around the corner to the cracked(ajar) door. As you move make the stealth check, which is a nonaction.

[Blindmage]

Wheldrake wrote:

Et voilà!

Saldiven, that's just the thing. Arcane manifestations appear in the other room, unseen by the players, they get no spellcraft check or even notion that a spell has been cast. Her voice (and line of effect) is enough for the spell to work.

I notice you keep saying 'arcane manefistations', yet the rule applies to all spellcasting, arcane, divine, psychic, etc.

[Wheldrake]

Yes, I do keep saying "Arcane manifestations" because that's what the FAQ was about.

As Claxon hinted, a lot of folks weren't happy with that FAQ since it is a kind of nerf-bat on any spellcasters trying to pull the wool over hapless NPC eyes (or the other way round, for that matter).

And yes, it clearly applies to all spellcasting, whatever the source, even component-less, invisible or psychic spellcasting.

I like the casting through the half-open door suggestion above, and it does seem like a semi-legitimate way for the encounter in AP#110 to play out.

Regardless of not having a verbal component as such (being a psychic spell) the target does need to hear and understand the action that is being "suggested" by the spell. And it does seem legitimate to have some mundane mask for the "arcane manifestations" - happening in another room, past the half-closed door.

I agree with Wraithstrike that there should be some chance (perception check) of the PCs catching a glimpse of said manifestations. But at least it seems like a scenario in which the NPC has some chance of actually succeeding her "attempt at surreptitious casting". If they were all just sitting around the coffee table, she would have zero chance of pulling it off, psychic bloodline notwithstanding.

[KingOfAnything]

Have you cross referenced with the levels of observation explanation from Ultimate Intrigue?

It is easy to let the FAQ swing your interpretation too far in the "never works" direction. But, it does leave room for using a half-open door, or a mundane distraction (Bluff) if the caster is not being actively observed. Manifestations are always noticeable, but not always attention-grabbing.

I'm glad you're finding a way to work with it.