You have, with identify, still less of a chance to identify a magic item than those two either.Actually I believe Spellcraft is still a trained only skill, so without spending at least 1 rank in it that sorcerer has NO chance to use her 1st level bonus spell or id magic items like a wizard would with a cantrip.
Right, I think my facetiousness was lost on you :)
0% chance is less than what a wizard or cleric with detect magic and a single rank in spellcraft would do.
Well here are some possibilities that I have made up off the top of my head. Perhaps they make the face of magic, perhaps the mystical forces they are gathering make people feel funny, perhaps they shimmer slightly as if they were a mirage, perhaps they just concentrate really hard in a particular way that everyone can tell means spellcasting.None of which are in RAW.
Now, if you want to argue what you do in your own house rules, that's a different story. But RAW does not say that a person can detect a spell being cast.
RAW it does not need one. The ready action only says state the condition you want to attack, and there is not rule stating you need to make a roll to know when someone is casting a spell or an SLA, using a supernatural ability, or anything else. If there was a rule for detecting a spell it would have been in the book.
Ready
The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
edit: I think spellcraft should be concentration check(in the spoiler), but that typo aside I think I am correct.
All you have to do for a ready action is state the condition. Nothing is needed to know if someone is casting a spell by RAW.Yes, by RAW, I could ready an action with the condition "I attack whenever the target tells a lie" (instant lie detector) or "I attack whenever the target is evil" (instant detect evil) or the like and, by RAW, that's legit.
Just like I can say "I attack whenever the target casts a spell".Realistically, I don't think a DM is going to allow you to have a Detect Lie or Detect Evil special ability this way, but you're right to point out that RAW supports it.
Those things you name have a way to be detected by the rules. Is that a strawman or one of those other illogical thingies?
"You're a Lamasu, great ! I wanted to kill a lamasu/I wanted to see a lamasu in his true form/What is a lamasu ?" (the later is what anyone without knowledges would respond), etc.
INCLUDING LT'S SORCERER.
LT: "You shouldn't cross me, I'm a lamasu!"
Dude: "What's that?"
LT: "F!%~ if I know."
Bluff don't change the attitude. Then, they remain hostile. And are still trying to harm you - since it's what an hostile creature does.No, the hostile creature does whatever is in it's best interest. If you convince it that it's best interest is to help you, it'll still be hostile, but it will help you. This is just like if I broke into your house late one night and put a gun to your head. You aren't going to be my friend, but you aren't going to be stupid and fight me.
That has nothing to do with the bluff skill. It has everything to do with the gun to someone's head.
The Silent Still spell argument came up years ago. A developer answered it, but I can't find the original post so my knowledge of the answer is not through my many years as a demi-lich, but it is because I have seen the question answered already on the WoTC forums. IIRC it was in WoTC's book of hotly debated topics that they put on the site shortly before they stopped supporting 3.5.
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against those who intend to hurt you in the immediate future.
So is Bluff. Once shootin' starts, nobody listens to what the enemy is shouting at them - they're too busy trying to insert sword A into abdomen B. The assumption is going to be that ANYTHING the enemy shouts out to you in combat is just to distract you - heck, they're likely to ignore truthful friendly warnings.
The action for Bluff says 'at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate'. That's a full round of nothing but talking while the enemy is engaging (and in fact, you can't do it during the surprise round, where you only get a standard action). So that's 2 rounds of combat before your bluff can possibly 'go off'. You could have cast 2 spells and ended the fight, or at least be well on the way to winning it.
Also, if you're using Silent Image to back up your Bluff, that requires Concentration - a standard action each round. So you can't pre-cast and then Bluff, b/c you'd have to use your full round to make the lie - the illusion vanishes. Minor Image and Major Image make this work better, as they actually have "concentration plus X rounds".
Now, if you get into a situation where folks are sizing up the opposition (not every fight starts at the instant you see the enemy), Bluff works a whole lot better. But then, so can Diplomacy in the exact same circumstances.
I really think what you're trying to achieve is better represented by Intimidation than Bluff. If you're trying an elaborate ruse to scare off the enemy, this can just as easily be interpreted as an attempt to Intimidate (demoralize) them. "Fools! I am ALL POWERFUL! Rrrawwwr!" <summons illusory demon>, making enemies cower. This is the skill for scaring people in fights, with reasonably clear mechanics. IOW, Bluff shouldn't be used as a substitute for Intimidate.
Really, it seems that Intimidate is more useful to the Sorcerer than Bluff. It can scare his foes AND short-term influence people nearly as well as Bluff can, with the same general consequences afterward (people like you even less). And it's designed to be used in combat, which is another plus.
|
So anyone still in doubt that LT is basing all his/her arguments on a game that is played vastly different from the norm yet? I mean honestly, it's quite clear that LT ain't playing the same game we are if s/he thinks by RAW, an absence of rules means you can do it....
As for ready to attack when it lies...easy you get your action when you make your sense motive vs bluff. See there are rules for detecting lies.
I attack when it's evil...sure, it eats a baby (or your detect evil flairs up) and you get your readied action. Once again rules for detecting evil.
I attack when it casts a spell...when it casts a spell (Still, silent and hell even quickened) you get your readied action. NONE of the feats actually specifially says that it hides your spell casting. In fact there is a FR 3.5 feat that did in fact specifically hide your spell casting. And see rules for detecting spell casting (which is pretty much you do it automatically..barring a FR feat).
I attack when it's evil...sure, it eats a baby (or your detect evil flairs up) and you get your readied action. Once again rules for detecting evil.
Hey now, let's not jump to conclusion. That baby might have bean a real dick! And delicious!
Exactly - by your argument, that way would be to have a readied action.
Those things you name have a way to be detected by the rules. Is that a strawman or one of those other illogical thingies?
They dont fit because the game by RAW assumes you know when someone is casting, but not when they are evil, or laying. If you want to debate then debate, but using false arguments is not something I have time for.
I know other posters do it, but I am not one of them. My brother used do to that in H.S. and middle school. Are we really going to resort to H.S. and middle school tactics?
Er why would a hostile creature help you. They are already risking death to harm you.
Also the gun example would be intimidate.
Now, assume it's not a real gun, but a toy gun. Only, you have the gun pointed at your head and you believe it's real.
If someone is pointing what you believe to be a loaded gun at your head, point blank, you're going to be hostile to them.
Are you, WWWW, going to fight them or comply?
Putting a gun to someone's head to get them to do something is INTIMIDATE. If it is a toy gun then you have to bluff them AND intimidate them.
Er why would a hostile creature help you. They are already risking death to harm you.
Also the gun example would be intimidate.
Now, assume it's not a real gun, but a toy gun. Only, you have the gun pointed at your head and you believe it's real.
If someone is pointing what you believe to be a loaded gun at your head, point blank, you're going to be hostile to them.
Are you, WWWW, going to fight them or comply?
Why wouldn't the victim know the difference, and since fear is the motivator it still fits intimidate.
Actually in that situation you should have to use a bluff check and then if you succeed it should go into an intimidate check once they believe the gun is real.
PS: I was ninja'd
That's not in debate.
The wizard class delivers knowledges and spellcraft better than any other class.
And your sorcerer delivers NOTHING that can't be done better by another class. Social skills-Bard or Rogue, Spells-Wizard. The picture of the sorcerer you have painted is STRICTLY a 5th wheel and will only shine when one of the other party members is out of commission.
Sorry, but over the this medium it's harder to discern. Couple that with the quantity of rules mistakes that permeate this thread and its not that an unreasonable conclusion.
Right, I think my facetiousness was lost on you :)
0% chance is less than what a wizard or cleric with detect magic and a single rank in spellcraft would do.
Yeah I'm not faulting you, just didn't want anyone to think I didn't know the rules :D.
Wow, this thread is SO much more fun now that LT is completely ignoring me. It's freeing really. Like running around without underpants on!
They dont fit because the game by RAW assumes you know when someone is casting, but not when they are evil, or laying.No, the game does not assume by RAW that you know when someone is casting. It simply says that you can ready an attack against an action and you've used this to make the gargantuan leap that having some tangible evidence of the action isn't required. By that same logic, the attacker doesn't need tangible evidence that the target is lieing or thinking something evil.
Wait, wait. So when someone you threaten provokes an AoO your character doesn't know? That's crazy. I'll bring that up next time I run around a giant. I'll be like "but he doesn't KNOW I provoke, and therefore would not react in pasting me". It's all very existential!
All you have to do for a ready action is state the condition. Nothing is needed to know if someone is casting a spell by RAW.Yes, by RAW, I could ready an action with the condition "I attack whenever the target tells a lie" (instant lie detector) or "I attack whenever the target is evil" (instant detect evil) or the like and, by RAW, that's legit.
Just like I can say "I attack whenever the target casts a spell".Realistically, I don't think a DM is going to allow you to have a Detect Lie or Detect Evil special ability this way, but you're right to point out that RAW supports it.
The proper response to all of the above should always be "How can you tell?"
Example: Ready Action "I'll hit him if he casts a spell". How can you tell? Well, V/S/M clues are a dead giveaway. No clues? Does the spell have a visible effect? Then you get your attack (probably simultaneous with the spell's effect). No visible effect? Out. Of. Luck.
Same with lies. If he fails the Bluff/Sense Motive roll-off, you attack. Otherwise you don't know he's lying unless you have an active Discern Lies spell.
This IS NOT THE SAME THING as spells provoking AoO. The AoO is provoked by a distraction (i.e. the necessary concentration to cast the spell), NOT the V/S/M components. AoO's presume you want to attack someone, and will take any opening to do so. By using a Ready Action to "attack him if he casts a spell", you are not necessarily going to attack him for things that provoke AoO's otherwise - like use a skill that requires an action, sheathing a weapon, etcetera.
So you're let's say you're set on gutting that wizard guy REGARDLESS. He casts a silent/stilled spell beside you. You get an AoO because he was 'open' and you wanted to kill him. Not because he cast a spell - you don't know he was trying to do that, you just took the shot because you could.
They dont fit because the game by RAW assumes you know when someone is casting, but not when they are evil, or laying.No, the game does not assume by RAW that you know when someone is casting. It simply says that you can ready an attack against an action and you've used this to make the gargantuan leap that having some tangible evidence of the action isn't required. By that same logic, the attacker doesn't need tangible evidence that the target is lieing or thinking something evil.
So you are saying the game allows you to do ready an action to disrupt spells, but refuses to provide rules on how know when to do so?
Really is that your position? Don't you think that if spellcasting were a special case they would say in order to know when spells are being cast you would have to _______.Once again, the game has ways to let you know when people are lieing or when they are evil. Why do I have to keep repeating this? Everyone that plays the games knows this to be the rule. I am beginning the join the others in questioning your knowledge of the game. It is either that or you can't admit you are wrong. As of now the RAW says I can disrupt a spell. Nothing in the RAW says I have to do anything special other than state it. At least if I ready against a lie the DM can tell me to make a sense motive check, or in regards to the evil person he can tell me "you dont know if he is evil", or he can make me get the spell cast so I do know assuming we discuss the situation ahead of time.
Do I need to summon James or Jason here? I have Summon Developer as an SLA.
All you have to do for a ready action is state the condition. Nothing is needed to know if someone is casting a spell by RAW.Yes, by RAW, I could ready an action with the condition "I attack whenever the target tells a lie" (instant lie detector) or "I attack whenever the target is evil" (instant detect evil) or the like and, by RAW, that's legit.
Just like I can say "I attack whenever the target casts a spell".Realistically, I don't think a DM is going to allow you to have a Detect Lie or Detect Evil special ability this way, but you're right to point out that RAW supports it.
The proper response to all of the above should always be "How can you tell?"
Example: Ready Action "I'll hit him if he casts a spell". How can you tell? Well, V/S/M clues are a dead giveaway. No clues? Does the spell have a visible effect? Then you get your attack (probably simultaneous with the spell's effect). No visible effect? Out. Of. Luck.
I would understand if a DM said that, but the game does not account for it. At the point I have to describe how I know something it is bring house rules into the game, but that can be countered by saying the next time the caster concentrates as if they are casting a spell....
Would you also saying SLA's can't be readied against? Before you answer read the quote earlier about SLA's and silenced stilled spells being effectively the same thing.
They dont fit because the game by RAW assumes you know when someone is casting, but not when they are evil, or laying.No, the game does not assume by RAW that you know when someone is casting. It simply says that you can ready an attack against an action and you've used this to make the gargantuan leap that having some tangible evidence of the action isn't required. By that same logic, the attacker doesn't need tangible evidence that the target is lieing or thinking something evil.
I forgot to mention this in the other response to this, but I bolded in the spoiler where .... you know what I will just put it here again.
PRD:Under Readying Actions
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
Once again spellcraft should be concentrate due to a typo, but that is neither here nor there.
No, you can't use Diplomacy in this case. As per RAW, Diplomacy can't be used "against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future".
"Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future."
That's the actual rules quote. It doesn't rule it out, it just says it's generally ineffective. Combat involves hostile creatures, and thus the DC is 25+Cha Mod.
DC25+ is 'hard'; you need a +15 modifier to get a 50% chance of success. That pretty much sums up why it's "Generally ineffective", along with the need to interact for a minute or more.
So we are back to the situation where the two feats contribute nothing at all in the case of undetectability since the casting is already undetectable. Really either way the feats are not helping.The fact that a spell is being cast is detected by the fact that arcane gestures are being made, arcane words are being uttered, arcane components are being flourished, and, if you are the target of the spell, some change in your physical or mental state.
If there are no arcane gestures being made, no arcane words being uttered, no arcane components being flourished, and you are not the target, then the spell casting is undetectable.
Then how do SLA's get countered?
On a similar note if I were in your game world I would only change my words from "if she starts casting a spell" to "if she focuses/concentrates/etc as if she is casting a spell". That would cover your super secret spells, and SLA's. Either way the feats have been defeated by AoO's, and Ready Actions.
That's what I've been saying. I'm glad to see we're in agreement.
The proper response to all of the above should always be "How can you tell?"
All the arguments needed to be in one place :D
Well since you wish everyone to show where it says people can actually tell that a spell is being cast I will throw a similar question back at you. Please demonstrate where it says that spells can be detected as being cast only through their components and that removing these components makes the spell undetectable. Surely you can live up to your own standard.
So we are back to the situation where the two feats contribute nothing at all in the case of undetectability since the casting is already undetectable. Really either way the feats are not helping.The fact that a spell is being cast is detected by the fact that arcane gestures are being made, arcane words are being uttered, arcane components are being flourished, and, if you are the target of the spell, some change in your physical or mental state.
If there are no arcane gestures being made, no arcane words being uttered, no arcane components being flourished, and you are not the target, then the spell casting is undetectable.
WWWW, wouldn't the concentration on the spell(ya know the one that provokes AoO's) be a change in mental state?* <----Rhetorical question. Hey LT.
*Caster: I was paying attention to my opponent with the big axe now I am staring off in space(replace staring off in space with other form of meditation etc).
I forgot to mention this in the other response to this, but I bolded in the spoiler where .... you know what I will just put it here again.
PRD:Under Readying Actions
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).Once again spellcraft should be concentrate due to a typo, but that is neither here nor there.
And notice also under readying an action that it states, "Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. " It says -nothing- about being able to actually detect that the condition for the readied action has been met. So, by RAW, you can ready an action to work as a detect lie or detect evil.
Which makes as much sense as being able to detect a spell being cast when you can't see that spell being cast, hear that spell being cast, sense any components being used, and aren't being targetted by the spell.
LT just to make sure you are paying attention what did I say about that last time you brought up the lie example, actually the last two times, but who's counting?
You still did not answer my other questions on the issue in previous posts. Do I need to retype those again also?edit: I just quoted RAW. You have yet to counter this RAW or my previous statements. RAW is at the center of these debates not feelings on how things should work.
I agree that for a ready action(common sense wise) the spells should not be detectable, but that is not RAW. RAW the spell is detectable, and it is RAI.
If you dont reply to my previous points(from other posts) I will just collect them, save them into a file, and keep pasting them until you either give an adequate reply or admit you are wrong.
I would understand if a DM said that, but the game does not account for it. At the point I have to describe how I know something it is bring house rules into the game, but that can be countered by saying the next time the caster concentrates as if they are casting a spell....
Would you also saying SLA's can't be readied against? Before you answer read the quote earlier about SLA's and silenced stilled spells being effectively the same thing.
Both circumstances require Concentration (if not checks); here's an ideal case for Perception to be used. Does he look like he's concentrating on a spell? Could be a flat DC, could be a Stealth vs Perception opposed roll. If you roll a 1 on your Perception check, you might gut him even if he's not casting a spell.
Notice this is the same problem as "I hit him if he tries to pick my pocket" - you have to spot him doing it. Slight of Hand assumes close observation, so it's a Slight of Hand vs. Perception roll. Nobody should have a problem with this. Casting stilled/silenced spells and SLA's really aren't any different - you have to spot the 'not-obvious' cues to know what's going on.
I would understand if a DM said that, but the game does not account for it. At the point I have to describe how I know something it is bring house rules into the game, but that can be countered by saying the next time the caster concentrates as if they are casting a spell....
Would you also saying SLA's can't be readied against? Before you answer read the quote earlier about SLA's and silenced stilled spells being effectively the same thing.
Both circumstances require Concentration (if not checks); here's an ideal case for Perception to be used. Does he look like he's concentrating on a spell? Could be a flat DC, could be a Stealth vs Perception opposed roll. If you roll a 1 on your Perception check, you might gut him even if he's not casting a spell.
Notice this is the same problem as "I hit him if he tries to pick my pocket" - you have to spot him doing it. Slight of Hand assumes close observation, so it's a Slight of Hand vs. Perception roll. Nobody should have a problem with this. Casting stilled/silenced spells and SLA's really aren't any different - you have to spot the 'not-obvious' cues to know what's going on.
If someone concentrates to the point of provoking an AoO under normal circumstances it is not to hard to tell that they are spellcasting. I think the guy that zones out while you are waiting to chop his head off is pretty obvious. It is nowhere near as oblivious(not noticeable) as trying to steal or lie to someone. You and LT are arguing what makes sense from a simulationist point of view. I am arguing the rules. The rules dont make for any such considerations. They even have a spot for spellcasters without any mention of any type of check. Even in LT's world it would not take long to find the correct wording to get the ready action off. Whether by blindly following the book, or by careful wording the attack will take place so the combination of the feats, and SLA's will lose the advantage that is trying to be given to them.
I forgot to mention this in the other response to this, but I bolded in the spoiler where .... you know what I will just put it here again.
PRD:Under Readying Actions
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).Once again spellcraft should be concentrate due to a typo, but that is neither here nor there.
And notice also under readying an action that it states, "Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. " It says -nothing- about being able to actually detect that the condition for the readied action has been met. So, by RAW, you can ready an action to work as a detect lie or detect evil.
Which makes as much sense as being able to detect a spell being cast when you can't see that spell being cast, hear that spell being cast, sense any components being used, and aren't being targetted by the spell.LT just to make sure you are paying attention what did I say about that last time you brought up the lie example, actually the last two times, but who's counting?
You still did not answer my other questions on the issue in previous posts. Do I need to retype those again also?Don't patronize me. You said that spell casting is different because the game assumes you know when someone is casting a spell. I pointed out that, as per RAW, readied actions do not require any tangible way of knowing that the condition has been met.
I responded to that already. I am still waiting on your reply. I am not patronizing you. I really will retype what I posted before. I just dont want to have to. Now it is possible that you missed it, but I did feel like you intentionally ignored it. I do apologize if you happened to not see it.
|
5th level Elven Wizard Dantane (Universalist)
Str: 10
Dex: 16 (18)
Con: 12 (10)
Int: 18 (20) (22 Headband)
Wis: 15
Cha: 12
Hp: 30
AC: 14 (22 with Shield and Mage Armor)
Initiative: +4
Spd: 30
Saves: Fort: + 3 Ref: +5 Will: + 6
Feats: Scribe Scroll, Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Wand, Spell Penetration (+ 4 total), Combat Casting
Special: Low-light vision, Elven Immunities, Elven Magic, Keen Senses, Weapon Familiarity, Hand of the Apprentice, Arcane Bond (Rat), Arcane School, Cantrips.
Languages: Common, Elven, Celestial, Sylvan
Skills: Craft: Alchemy ( + 12, + 13), Fly: ( + 8), Knowledge: Arcana ( + 13 +, 14), Planes: ( + 12, + 13 ), Religion: ( + 12, + 13), Dungeoneering: ( + 12, + 13), Profession: ( + 9), Spellcraft: ( + 13, + 14), Use Magic Device: ( + 4), Perception: ( + 6), Diplomacy ( + 4)
Spells per day: 4/5/4/2
Spellbook:
Cantrips: All
1st: Shield, Mage Armor, Protection from Evil, Identify, Expeditious Retreat, Disguise Self, Charm Person, Feather Fall, Comprehend Languages
2nd: Fox’s Cunning, Eagle’s Splendor, See Invisibility, Invisibility, Bear’s Endurance, Rope Trick, Cat’s Grace, Detect Thoughts, Knock, Owl’s Wisdom, Scorching Ray
3rd: Dispel Magic, Fly, Fireball, Magic Circle against Evil, Displacement, Haste, Lightning Bolt, Tongues,
Items: Wand of Scorching Ray, Headband of Int + 2, Bag of Holding
Here is a little character that I threw together. I rolled 4d6 drop the lowest for my stats and I only used the Pathfinder Corebook to create this character. If I used all 3.5 books and so on then it would take me a lot longer. What I did was I looked up the amount of gold a 5th level character would have which was 10,500gp which I only spent 7,250gp. I needed to spend less because with my Craft feats I was able to make those three items at half the cost. With the rest of the gold I spent I bought more spells to add to my spellbook. I didn’t really choose these carefully so it isn’t the best spell list but it’s not the poorest. As you can see I focused on taking spells that will boost my ability scores which will boost my skill bonuses and the DC’s to my spells and my saves. I also took spells like Comprehend Languages and Tongues because Bluff and Diplomacy won’t do you any good if you don’t speak the same language nor understand their language.
I have various knowledges, a profession, and crafts that will help me earn gold on top of what I make for adventuring.
If I needed to I could use Detect Thoughts to learn information from someone that could help me with Diplomacy.
Not anywhere near my best work, but I would say not too shabby.
The time dependent equation of state for the caster observer system demonstrates that any change in the casters mental state variable produces a corresponding change in the observers mental state variable.Well since you wish everyone to show where it says people can actually tell that a spell is being cast I will throw a similar question back at you. Please demonstrate where it says that spells can be detected as being cast only through their components and that removing these components makes the spell undetectable. Surely you can live up to your own standard.
So we are back to the situation where the two feats contribute nothing at all in the case of undetectability since the casting is already undetectable. Really either way the feats are not helping.The fact that a spell is being cast is detected by the fact that arcane gestures are being made, arcane words are being uttered, arcane components are being flourished, and, if you are the target of the spell, some change in your physical or mental state.
If there are no arcane gestures being made, no arcane words being uttered, no arcane components being flourished, and you are not the target, then the spell casting is undetectable.WWWW, wouldn't the concentration on the spell(ya know the one that provokes AoO's) be a change in mental state?* <----Rhetorical question. Hey LT.
*Caster: I was paying attention to my opponent with the big axe now I am staring off in space(replace staring off in space with other form of meditation etc).
Does that mean when the caster's mental state goes out of focus(not paying attention) the attacker's mental state goes to happy land because he is about to stop a spell from going off, or at least try too?
I am off for tonight. I will return tomorrow if needed.