RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
It doesn't really cover the details of spellcasting in any books that I've seen, so I thought I'd start some discussion on it here. Obviously, in order to cast a spell, the character must provide the necessary components whether they be Verbal, Somatic, Material, or other. The question though, is how loud do the Verbal components have to be? Obviously they must be audible (unless Silent Spell is used), but can they be whispered? Must they be yelled at the top of the lungs? Also, do spells create flashes of light, sounds, or other clues of their casting if it does not specifically state such in the spell descriptions? For example, mage armor. When you cast it, is there a dazzling flash of light as a ghostly suit of armor appears around the caster's body and then fades away, leaving only the invisible effects of the spell in it's wake? Or is it simply a wave of the hand, an arcane chant, and the armor is simply there with no indication that a spell was cast? Can any charlatan with a few ranks in Bluff wave his hands around and speak in gibberish to make people think he is a wizard or would it be plain as day to know that, since his fingers aren't glowing, he's obviously not casting anything? What about spells like charm person? If someone watches you wave your hands around and fire a magical cloud of sparkles and suddenly the guard is more than happy to let you in the gates without checking you for weapons, isn't it clear to them what just happened?
I'd just like to see what others think. In my games, all spellcasting leaves visible evidence. When you are casting a spell, it is obvious to anyone who can see you that you are doing so. You can use Sleight of Hand to conceal the sparkling fingers to some degree and, with the Complete Scoundrel, there are a few Skill Tricks to help you out, but for the most part, it's pretty clear, IMO.
I'd think you'd have to speak at a reasonable decibel level - otherwise all wizards would routinely whisper their spells simply to avoid others using spell craft on them.
I have always assumed that the verbal component of a spell is stated in a normal speaking voice, and let Listen checks go from there. Somatic components are not normal, everyday gestures and therefore obvious. Material components must be in hand and are as obvious as they really are: a pinch of bat guano might be noticeable to a few feet if fresh and smelly, but you can hold a coin in your hand without the coin being seen. Other threads have mentioned foci in the past.
I don't presume there's a lot of flashing fingers and whatnot, since that means there's an additional spell effect: the light from the fingers. What is the radius of illumination? How does it interact with darkness spells? Can I just chant spells as I go through the Underdark with my fingers to guide me?
It seems you're concerned about how aware others would be of a spell's effects and if someone can bluff spellcasting. Different skill checks might help determine if a spell effect has occurred, e.g. Sense Motive to see if someone got charmed, or Knowledge (arcane) or Spellcraft to note an abjuration effect. As for Bluffing, if everyone's fingers glow and whatnot when they spellcast, then the person doing the bluffing better do the same or else his ruse will fall flat in a hurry. If it's not quite so obvious, then set a DC for bluffing spellcasting, or perhaps make it an opposed check: Bluff vs. Sense Motive or Spellcraft, perhaps with a synergy bonus if you have ranks in both.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I don't presume there's a lot of flashing fingers and whatnot, since that means there's an additional spell effect: the light from the fingers. What is the radius of illumination? How does it interact with darkness spells? Can I just chant spells as I go through the Underdark with my fingers to guide me?
My take on the 'flashing fingers' is that the illumination is largely inconsequential, not even really enough to illuminate more than a firefly would, but still noticeable. As a consequence, anyone waving their hands around and speaking gibberish will fail any Bluff check to convince people he is a spellcaster unless he illuminates his hands in some way (or if the witnesses had never been exposed to magic before, then they might believe it).
The question though, is how loud do the Verbal components have to be? Obviously they must be audible (unless Silent Spell is used), but can they be whispered? Must they be yelled at the top of the lungs?
PHB, page 174: "To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice."
I interpret that as more than a whisper and less than a shout. In other words, an ordinary speaking volume intended to be heard clearly (Listen DC 0).
Also, do spells create flashes of light, sounds, or other clues of their casting if it does not specifically state such in the spell descriptions? For example, mage armor. When you cast it, is there a dazzling flash of light as a ghostly suit of armor appears around the caster's body and then fades away, leaving only the invisible effects of the spell in it's wake?
That's how I rule it as DM, but the actual rules are silent.
In my games, all spellcasting leaves visible evidence. When you are casting a spell, it is obvious to anyone who can see you that you are doing so.
Same here.
Page 174 of the PHB states that a spell's verbal component must be spoken in a 'strong voice'. In terms of Listen checks, that means a DC 0 check.
Page 174 further states that somatic components require one free hand to use, so I'd say using Sleight of Hand to disguise your spell casting is reasonable. Personally I'd make an opposed check to any observers' Spot checks.
As to those minor extra spell effects, I usually don't imagine them. Little dancing lights while casting mage armor? No. Little dancing lights while casting color spray? Sure, that's good flavor.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Page 174 further states that somatic components require one free hand to use, so I'd say using Sleight of Hand to disguise your spell casting is reasonable. Personally I'd make an opposed check to any observers' Spot checks.
Yes, I do allow people to make a Spot check to see through the ruse. I also give the caster a -5 penalty on the Sleight check since I envision spellcasting as a somewhat intricate and complicated process, something that is not easily concealed.
The rules are fairly clear when it comes to the components, and others have reiterated those points. As for light shows, sound effects, and video-game-esque appearances of spells, I'm not always completely sure what to do in this matter. I've had players, who had no desire to have their spellcasting noticed, ask about whether or not it was visible. I haven't really made a hard and fast rule about it. I imagine if such things occur at all, it's situational. As mentioned before, since color spray is going to be near impossible to conceal anyway, there's no reason not to make the casting flashy as well. That's certainly cool in it's own right, and if you dig that kind of description, go for it.
However, if you're trying to be stealthy and use a charm person or detect thoughts, I have no problem with there not being any obvious magical mojo flying around, as it seems unfair to the caster.
It goes beyond the individual spell and reaches into the type of caster as well. Bards? Probably don't have a lot of lights accompanying their magic, since they're not the "flashy" type (at least, their spells aren't; the bards themselves are, of course, pretty noticeable on average). Maybe high level bard magic suffuses the area around their hands or their whole body or the spell's target with a diffuse, bright, yet localized glow. Otherwise, nothing.
Sorcerers? Probably lots of wisps of energy flowing into and out of them. I can see them becoming surrounded by motes of light, which might even condense into whatever spell effect they bring into being (or maybe simply glow like fireflies around the caster for a moment and disappear). Almost any sorcerer spell makes sense with some "graphic" accompanying its casting.
Wizards? Could be either way, depending on the wizard and spell. I could see a casting of lightning bolt going both ways, for instance; it makes equal sense to me if there is a display of electrical energy around the caster as he prepares to loose his mystical might, or if he simply waves his hands in an odd way and suddenly the air is rent with the "kra-koom!" of a thunderclap.
Divine casters are another thing all together. Does a cure spell involve a soothing glow or blue or golden (or whatever color) light? Or do the wounds simply stop bleeding with no fanfare whatsoever, leaving one looking and feeling like an action movie star- really banged up, but strangely not loosing much blood and not slowed down at all.
I hadn't really thought about this until just now, but in the case of druids in particular, I typically haven't imagined their spells as being very flashy in the casting at all; probably since divine magic is described specifically as being less flashy than arcane, and the old bit about druids feeling arcane magic is more disruptive. So, in my mind their casting looks pretty mundane.
There's a certain amount of flavor that can be instilled in one's setting either way, also. The common use of lots of glowy things and shiny stuff along with the casting of spells has a certain high-fantasy (and rather modern, it seems, borrowing heavily from video games) feel to it, very imaginative and exotic. On the other hand, there's a certain "down to earth" kind of feeling in a setting where no motes of primal mana energy flow around a caster who's unleashing a spell; to me, this seems much more "traditional." Both are valid ideas to try and bring to the gaming table- it simply depends on the needs of the story and personal tastes (although one should be consistent in one's descriptions or offer an explanation for any inconsistencies).
Anyway, enough of my pointless rambling. Here's something that might be practical (or completely unnecessary and cumbersome- you decide!): either describe all spells as innately having some "residual" effect, some visible light or energy involved in their casting, or rule that not all spells work that way and make some guidelines for which ones do and don't. Perhaps all evocation, conjuration, and illusion spells have "special effects," whereas abjurations and divinations don't. Perhaps 1st and 2nd level spells aren't noticeable, but 3rd and higher are. Whatever. Players can (of course) describe their spells and the castings however they want, within those parameters. If they so choose to try and "surpress" the casting, allow a Spellcraft and/or Concentration check (DC 10 or 15 + spell level) in order to do so.
Or just completely leave it to the players from the beginning. I've written way too much about something far too trivial... again. :)
Planar Handboook has the nonverbal spell feat which allows you to conceal the verbal components as something other than the specific verbal components normally associated with the spell so it can't eliminate them but would make it less obvious you were casting a spell since you could just speak normally without any indication you were casting.
On components I did come up with 2 questions regarding eschew materials (apologies for threadjacking) 1 Is a material component eschewable if it is technically legit for eschewing (ie less than one gp in value) but removing it makes the casting seem a bit bizarre such as Fire Seeds without the acorns or holly berries (i think I got the right spell) or a morsel of an animals preferred food for Charm Animal I think? 2 If a spell has multiple components some of which are subject to eschewing and some of which aren't can you eschew the ones that can be eschewed leaving you with the more expensive ones?
1 Is a material component eschewable if it is technically legit for eschewing (ie less than one gp in value) but removing it makes the casting seem a bit bizarre such as Fire Seeds without the acorns or holly berries (i think I got the right spell) or a morsel of an animals preferred food for Charm Animal I think?
2 If a spell has multiple components some of which are subject to eschewing and some of which aren't can you eschew the ones that can be eschewed leaving you with the more expensive ones?
I'd say Yes and Yes. As acorns, holly berries and food morsels exist almost entirely for flavor purposes, so I wouldn't want to deprive a player of what limited use Eschew Materials provides.
I can't think of a spell that qualifies for your second dilemma but I can't think of a reason why one non-eschewable component would nullify Eschew Materials' normal benefit.
Page 174 further states that somatic components require one free hand to use, so I'd say using Sleight of Hand to disguise your spell casting is reasonable. Personally I'd make an opposed check to any observers' Spot checks.
Actually, there is a skill trick in "Complete Scoundrel" that allows you to do just that. It's called "Conceal Spellcasting", requires a Sleight of Hand check Vs Spot, and is usable once per encounter.
So basically what you are suggesting, but the "Powers that be" decided that to be able to do so you should fulfil some prerequisites, pay 2 skill points to acquire the trick and that you'd only be allowed to use it once per encounter (which prevents the Beguiler to abuse it).
Bocklin