|
Hey all, quick question:
Does Still/Silent/both Spell-ing a spell increase the Spellcraft DC to identify?
It would make sense, if someone is not moving and not speaking, that their opponents may not even realize that he is casting. Even if they do realize he's casting, shouldn't it be harder to recognize what spell it is?
"Hey, that Wizard is moving his hands... looks like Ray of Enfeeblement!"
"Nah, Ray of Enfeeblement has a Vocal component, too. If he was casting that he'd have to..." *BZZZT*
Here's the quote from d20pfsrd on the Spellcraft skill:
Identify Spell Being Cast: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Bolding mine.
If it has a visible effect then yes, you can identify it with a Spellcraft check. You wouldn't be able to discern where it came from though. If it's a ray or the effect obviously comes from the caster (bead of fire - fireball) then Still/Silent MM feats won't help in any case.
If it has a visible effect then yes, you can identify it with a Spellcraft check. You wouldn't be able to discern where it came from though. If it's a ray or the effect obviously comes from the caster (bead of fire - fireball) then Still/Silent MM feats won't help in any case.
However, identifying it after the fact, i.e. by identifying the effects, wouldn't help if you're trying to use spellcraft to counterspell. If the spell is silenced and stilled, the spell is effectively unable to be counterspelled unless dispel magic is used. Even then, one would have to be able to somehow detect that the caster is actually casting a spell. (/aside)
By RAW I don't believe that applying these metamagic feats to the spell stop you from being able to identify it -- neither the Spellcraft description nor feat description seem to say so. I also read "you must be able to clearly see the spell being cast" as simply meaning "you have to be observing the caster" -- not that any spell without a somatic component is automatically Spellcraft-immune.
On the issue of "is it obvious he's spellcasting", I'll note that spell-like abilities don't have any components at all but it's still obvious when one is used. And clearly even if you have no components to the spell, you're focusing enough that you open yourself up to AoOs -- I'd say it's clear what you're doing, components or not.
This question, and the replies so far, are straying into houserule territory (which is perfectly acceptable). But it's worth noting that the RAW doesn't explicitly state that Silent or Still cause penalties to Spellcraft checks.
In fact, the Core rules say quite the opposite:
Counterspelling Metamagic Spells
Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered.
So, per RAW, the DC to identify a spell as it is being cast is exactly the same, regardless of whether Still or Silent (or both) are applied to the spell.
Yes, I get it. If the caster is doing nothing and saying nothing, how can the observer identify the spell? I'm with you on this. I think in 3.x we played that there was a +5 penalty to the Spellcraft DC for each of Still/Silent (+10 total if both are used). I don't remember if this was RAW or houserule. In any case, it would definitely be houserule in Pathfinder.
I feel a bit of houseruling coming on at my table.
I think in 3.x we played that there was a +5 penalty to the Spellcraft DC for each of Still/Silent (+10 total if both are used). I don't remember if this was RAW or houserule. In any case, it would definitely be houserule in Pathfinder.
This is how I run it, but there's no rules per se on it.
Those of you who houserule a Spellcraft penalty: do you give a similar penalty if the spell is verbal only to begin with?
Those of you who houserule a Spellcraft penalty: do you give a similar penalty if the spell is verbal only to begin with?
Nope.
Casters (and anyone else) trained in Spellcraft know how to recognize those spells too. It's part of the training.
Likewise, it could be part of the training to recognize Still/Silent feats applied to ordinary spells (which might be a fair rationalization for using spellcraft on Still/Silent spells).
Now, let's ask: if there is a sound-proof invisible wall of force between you and me, and I cast Power Word Stun, can you spellcraft it? I'm not using Silent Spell, and the spell chosen has no Materials for you to see and no Somatic component for you to watch, and because of the wall, you can't hear the words. Do you need to be able to read lips to identify my spell?
Per RAW, nope. Per logic, yep.
DMs should feel free to arbitrate whatever penalties they like to this stuff, and players can feel free to grumble about it because there is no RAW to support any of it.
Those of you who houserule a Spellcraft penalty: do you give a similar penalty if the spell is verbal only to begin with?Nope.
Casters (and anyone else) trained in Spellcraft know how to recognize those spells too. It's part of the training.
I can buy that. I'm just trying to stretch this houserule idea to see where it goes. If I like it I may add it to my own game.
Now, is a Silent Power Word Kill (or one cast from the other side of a silent barrier, as in your example) at -5 or -10 to identify with Spellcraft?
Those of you who houserule a Spellcraft penalty: do you give a similar penalty if the spell is verbal only to begin with?Nope.
Casters (and anyone else) trained in Spellcraft know how to recognize those spells too. It's part of the training.
I can buy that. I'm just trying to stretch this houserule idea to see where it goes. If I like it I may add it to my own game.
Now, is a Silent Power Word Kill (or one cast from the other side of a silent barrier, as in your example) at -5 or -10 to identify with Spellcraft?
I play as -5 per metamagic feat that hides the spell. Since only one such feat is applied, it would only be -5 for me.
My base premise would be that the training in Spellcraft includes recognizing spells that don't use all the usual components. If this premise were not true, then every spell that has no Somatic component would automatically impose a -5 penalty under the houserule, which is not where I wanted the houserule to go.
In my case, the housrule is a benefit for taking the metamagic feats (they are fairly useless feats; I have never actually had any player take either of these feats). I did not want this houserule to be a general benefit for casting spells that came already pre-made with less rigorous casting requirements.
If it has a visible effect then yes, you can identify it with a Spellcraft check. You wouldn't be able to discern where it came from though. If it's a ray or the effect obviously comes from the caster (bead of fire - fireball) then Still/Silent MM feats won't help in any case.
Identifying effects of a spell uses knowledge(arcana).
Spellcraft is identifying a spell by observing the details of spellcasting.
The penalties for perception apply to spellcraft checks to identify a spell being cast. With still/silent spell, quickened spell, or spell-like abilities, there are no percievable spellcasting actions.
Thus you have 2 choices.
1. Say that the spell cannot be identified.
2. Use the perception penalty for invisible objects(IE -20 to the check)
I have always run it with -5 per missing component too. Are you guys sure this wasn't an official rule? It seems wierd that we all came up with the same house rule.
Ken
It was an official rule in 3.0/3.5, but it got dropped in PF.
Identify Spell Being Cast: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
That bold line gives the DM a lot of wiggle room.
This question, and the replies so far, are straying into houserule territory (which is perfectly acceptable). But it's worth noting that the RAW doesn't explicitly state that Silent or Still cause penalties to Spellcraft checks.
In fact, the Core rules say quite the opposite:
Counterspelling Metamagic Spells
Metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered.
So, per RAW, the DC to identify a spell as it is being cast is exactly the same, regardless of whether Still or Silent (or both) are applied to the spell.
Yes, I get it. If the caster is doing nothing and saying nothing, how can the observer identify the spell? I'm with you on this. I think in 3.x we played that there was a +5 penalty to the Spellcraft DC for each of Still/Silent (+10 total if both are used). I don't remember if this was RAW or houserule. In any case, it would definitely be houserule in Pathfinder.
By the RAW, penalties to perception do apply, so no it would not have the same DC.