First, I am bluffing that I am not casting a spell when I actually am.No, you aren't. You are just casting a spell. You have only modified the spell to act differently than is standard for that particular spell where the end result is now the same spell that just doesn't happen to have component X.
The bandits in your example would have no way of knowing anything is up if the spell had no components.
When you cast a still/silent spell, you are still using a standard action. That is 3 seconds of concentration. If you are casting defensively, then you are also concentrating on not lowering your guard.
Long story short, during the 3 seconds you are casting, you will be most likely be noticably distracted. Normally, it is a DC 20 sense motive check that something is "not right". The bluff is to try and make it look like nothing is amiss. If you have a horrible bluff skill, you may be better off not bluffing and take your chances with the normal DC of 20.
I think the cleanest thing to do would have been to keep in the 'you must see the verbal/somatic' wording, and then add into counterspells a line that says the following :
Spell Like Abilities & Counterspelling : If an opponent is using a spell like ability (which you must make a perception check to identify, which is automatic if you have seen this opponent use the spell like ability before), then you may use a readied counterspell action to use Dispel Magic on the SLA.
That would have made it clean and easy to follow, and not resulted in a confusing morass where you can automatically 100% of the time tell someone is casting a spell so long as they are in your line of sight with no saves or skill rolls.
I don't think it makes much sense to be able to notice anyone is casting a spells without verbal, somatic, material, or focus components.
I think the cleanest thing to do would have been to keep in the 'you must see the verbal/somatic' wording, and then add into counterspells a line that says the following :
Spell Like Abilities & Counterspelling : If an opponent is using a spell like ability (which you must make a perception check to identify, which is automatic if you have seen this opponent use the spell like ability before), then you may use a readied counterspell action to use Dispel Magic on the SLA.
That would have made it clean and easy to follow, and not resulted in a confusing morass where you can automatically 100% of the time tell someone is casting a spell so long as they are in your line of sight with no saves or skill rolls.
I wouldn't even go that far. For example, what if I made my knowledge (religion) check and i know that this demon can teleport away if in danger. I would say that if I am readied to counter a SLA I can cast dispel magic if I think they are casting a spell. If I am right, I have a decent shot at stopping them. If I am wrong, I just wasted my dispel magic.
I wouldn't even go that far. For example, what if I made my knowledge (religion) check and i know that this demon can teleport away if in danger. I would say that if I am readied to counter a SLA I can cast dispel magic if I think they are casting a spell. If I am right, I have a decent shot at stopping them. If I am wrong, I just wasted my dispel magic.I think the cleanest thing to do would have been to keep in the 'you must see the verbal/somatic' wording, and then add into counterspells a line that says the following :
Spell Like Abilities & Counterspelling : If an opponent is using a spell like ability (which you must make a perception check to identify, which is automatic if you have seen this opponent use the spell like ability before), then you may use a readied counterspell action to use Dispel Magic on the SLA.
That would have made it clean and easy to follow, and not resulted in a confusing morass where you can automatically 100% of the time tell someone is casting a spell so long as they are in your line of sight with no saves or skill rolls.
I'd be ok with that too, honestly. It's still a skill check/perception/etc to know he can do it, and then a perception check to realize he's doing it the first time he does it.
Long story short, during the 3 seconds you are casting, you will be most likely be noticably distracted. Normally, it is a DC 20 sense motive check that something is "not right". The bluff is to try and make it look like nothing is amiss. If you have a horrible bluff skill, you may be better off not bluffing and take your chances with the normal DC of 20.So what action would the bluff check be?
-James
Free action. The bluff is using words(talking is a free action) or good timing(cast the spell at the right time) to try and cover up your distraction.
Example:
Start casting spell.
Bandit leader: Regardless of who you are or who you serve, everyone pays the toll.
Finish casting, but because you were distracted, you missed part of what the leader said.
Wizard(Good Bluff Check): Oh, wow, is that a teak inlay on your longbow. The craftmanship is simply amazing, oh sorry, what were you saying again?
Wizard(Bad Bluff Check): Um, er, yeah, we are on a mission from the king.
This is just a fluff example of how it could play out. In the good bluff you covered your distraction with a different reason for being distracted. In the bad bluff, you repeated information that was already covered previously in the conversation, and generally made you distraction more obvious.
I'd be ok with that too, honestly. It's still a skill check/perception/etc to know he can do it, and then a perception check to realize he's doing it the first time he does it.I wouldn't even go that far. For example, what if I made my knowledge (religion) check and i know that this demon can teleport away if in danger. I would say that if I am readied to counter a SLA I can cast dispel magic if I think they are casting a spell. If I am right, I have a decent shot at stopping them. If I am wrong, I just wasted my dispel magic.I think the cleanest thing to do would have been to keep in the 'you must see the verbal/somatic' wording, and then add into counterspells a line that says the following :
Spell Like Abilities & Counterspelling : If an opponent is using a spell like ability (which you must make a perception check to identify, which is automatic if you have seen this opponent use the spell like ability before), then you may use a readied counterspell action to use Dispel Magic on the SLA.
That would have made it clean and easy to follow, and not resulted in a confusing morass where you can automatically 100% of the time tell someone is casting a spell so long as they are in your line of sight with no saves or skill rolls.
Personally, I would use a Sense Motive check to notice that they are distracted when using the SLA instead of a Perception check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, really intersting subject...
Well, first of all let's began with the rules :
- In combat situation casting a spell or using a SLA does give your opponent an AoO. The thing you don't have to forget is "in combat situation", that is when your are fencing, attacking the other and defending yourself against his attacks.
If you try to lace your shoes in that situation you would understand why every ennemies around you will make a profit of your lack of defense... It is the same when you cast, you stop defending yourself to concentrate on the spellcasting...
- Page 207 of the PF Core Rulebook it is clearly stated that metamagic feats are not taken into account when determining whether a spell can be countered.
- Page 221 of the PF Core Rulebook we can read that Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled (they can be dispelled though).
That stated here is what, for me, are the issues with counterspelling and even, more generally spellcasting perception :
- By rules if you want to counterspell someone you just have to chose your opponent, ready your action and wait for him to cast. It does'nt say you have to see him, hear him or even smell him. What if the chosen opponent stealth himself before casting ? Do I have to see him in order to counter ? And if I can't without seeing him can I do it by sound alone ?(that is if the spell has verbal component).
By rules alone , has it is now, even if he is invisible and make no noise I can counter him...
- What about the penalty on the stealth check when casting a spell with verbal component ? Or with Somatic component ? And with both ?
For now it seems to me there's no rules for this.
The problem, for me, beyond the lack of clear rules, is the lack of real spellcasting description in spells. Other than Verbal, Somatic and Material you don't know if when casting Magic Missile you have to shout, whisper, point your target, hop three times etc.
It may seem unimportant but imagine if, in order to cast Charm Person, you have to do the chicken dance and shout "make him my friend, make him my friend, make him my friend" and finally point at your target... And now if you have to simply whisper "friend" one time while just pointing a single finger at your target... Rather different isn't it ?
Same thing with material component, to cast Fire Shield do you have to throw the sulphur (a yellow powder) all around you ? Just keep it in your hand ? Sulphur is rather smelly, how can you take this in count ?
That are rather difficult issue to deal with with just simple rules but if anyone has an idea I'll take it with real pleasure :)
So what action would the bluff check be?-James
Free action. The bluff is using words(talking is a free action) or good timing(cast the spell at the right time) to try and cover up your distraction.
Other uses of bluff aren't free actions, shouldn't there be some cost to attempting to do this? Otherwise wouldn't everyone wish to do so?
-James
Trying to bluff that you are not casting when using a spell that has verbal and somatic components would have very hefty penalties(probably somewhere in the impossible range). So to even have a chance to pull this off you must have a spell with no observable components. That requires still and/or silent spell. Not everyone is going to want to blow a level 3 spell slot on a level 1 spell effect.
I typically make using bluff to hide other actions a free action on top of the time for the base action to keep things moving along. The bluff could easily extend the casting time to a full round or more as per the standard bluff rules or double the casting time as per the secret message rules. The amount of time it takes is largely irrelevant because this is pretty much an out of combat usage.
Trying to bluff that you are not casting when using a spell that has verbal and somatic components would have very hefty penalties(probably somewhere in the impossible range).
And if I want to bluff that I'm casting when I'm not? I'm just speaking.. so free action right?
Doesn't really scan well.
Seems like it should at least be a move action, or in the case of actual casting a concentration check as you're trying to do two things at once, right?
-James
Bluffing that you are doing nothing when you are actually doing something is a free action(personal house rule) on top the action your are trying to hide or doubles the duration of the action you are trying to hide(based on the RAW for secret message). Take your pick.
Bluffing to make it look like you are doing something you are not takes as long as the action you are pretending to do as per the bluff rules. If I am pretending to cast a spell with a 10 minute cast time, it is going to take me 10 minutes to bluff it.
As for the concentration check, yes, the DM would probably be within their rights to ask for one, but the concentration rules don't have a DC listed for other distractions. I would put it on the same level as casting defensively, but that is also going into the house rule/judgement call realm.
As opposed to secret message, you aren't evidently doing anything at all.
You are just standing there, being aloof for 6 seconds.
There is no bluff because you don't even appear to be doing anything regardless.
As opposed to secret message, you aren't evidently doing anything at all.
You are just standing there, being aloof for 6 seconds.There is no bluff because you don't even appear to be doing anything regardless.
You don't have to bluff. If you can choose not to bluff, then everyone gets a DC 20 sense motive to know that "something is amiss" as per the sense motive rules. If they succeed, they will notice that you are distracted and seem to be paying attention to something else. If they somehow know that you are a spellcaster, then they may be able to put two and two together and figure out that you are casting a spell.
Bluffing gives you a way to raise the DC of the sense motive check. If you have a poor bluff skill, you are probably better off not bluffing as that could actually lower the DC for people to notice.
You don't have to bluff. If you can choose not to bluff, then everyone gets a DC 20 sense motive to know that "something is amiss" as per the sense motive rules.
What the hell would be amiss? Unless they stop talking to stare at you very intently in the middle of a one-on-one conversation. A person standing amongst a group or not in the middle of everything would not be noticed if he spaced out for 6 seconds.
If they somehow know that you are a spellcaster, then they may be able to put two and two together and figure out that you are casting a spell.
If they are geniuses.
Bandit A: "Hey, that guys got robes on and he is distracted. I bet he's gonna blow us up!"Bandit B: "No, you dummy. Look he's just standing here. You have to wave your fingers around and say funny words to cast spells."
Or if they are paranoid. But if they go around killing people who seem distracted because they might be spellcasters, they will end up in some serious crap.
You don't have to bluff. If you can choose not to bluff, then everyone gets a DC 20 sense motive to know that "something is amiss" as per the sense motive rules.What the hell would be amiss? Unless they stop talking to stare at you very intently in the middle of a one-on-one conversation. A person standing amongst a group or not in the middle of everything would not be noticed if he spaced out for 6 seconds.
Those would be circumstantial modifiers to the sense motive check.
Trying to cast a still/silent spell while talking one on one with a person would be a lot harder than casting the same spell while your friend is talking to(IE distracting) the guy.
If they somehow know that you are a spellcaster, then they may be able to put two and two together and figure out that you are casting a spell.If they are geniuses.
Bandit A: "Hey, that guys got robes on and he is distracted. I bet he's gonna blow us up!"
Bandit B: "No, you dummy. Look he's just standing here. You have to wave your fingers around and say funny words to cast spells."Or if they are paranoid. But if they go around killing people who seem distracted because they might be spellcasters, they will end up in some serious crap.
That is why I said they may be able to figure it out. Trying to pull this trick on a half a dozen level 1 warrior is going to be a lot easier than trying to pull it off on a dragon.
If you are a bard wearing armor, they may not even know you are a spellcaster.
A dragon is likely to just eat you anyway.
A dragon is likely to just eat you anyway.
Only because you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup....
Actually, I just noticed this:
Action: Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you.
Even if you knew the person fairly well, you would already be crispy before you figured out he was casting a spell.
Actually, I just noticed this:
Action: Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you.Even if you knew the person fairly well, you would already be crispy before you figured out he was casting a spell.
Good point, but the key word there is generally. There are exceptions.
If we have been talking normally for a few minutes(I have had a chance to get a sense of who you are), then you suddenly start acting distracted, that would merit an immediate check.
If we just met and you do a ninja spell cast, the fact that I am unfamiliar with you would probably put a hefty penalty on my sense motive check.
Meanwhile a close friend who had seen you pull that trick before would probably get a bonus to their sense motive check.
Either way, we are well into the DM adjudication realm at this point. My only real contention is that it is possible for someone that a spellcaster is distracted via sense motive. The actually difficulty depends on the circumstances.
If we just met and you do a ninja spell cast, the fact that I am unfamiliar with you would probably put a hefty penalty on my sense motive check.
Or you wouldn't even get one because you wouldn't be familiar with me.
If we have been talking normally for a few minutes(I have had a chance to get a sense of who you are), then you suddenly start acting distracted, that would merit an immediate check.
Why? First, you recognize something is wrong then you try and deduce why, they you have been exploded by my spell before you realize it.
Either way, we are well into the DM adjudication realm at this point.
Oh please. Let's just skip to the part where I make the point you have house-ruled this whole thing to hell and the rules do no support you because you are making stuff up because in general, the whole set of rules around disguised casting is both non-existent and nonsense.
Oh please. Let's just skip to the part where I make the point you have house-ruled this whole thing to hell and the rules do no support you because you are making stuff up because in general, the whole set of rules around disguised casting is both non-existent and nonsense.
Not really. Most of this is based on 3.5 splat books which do a great job of clarifying the why's and how's of sneaky spellcasting. Pathfinder is meant to be backwards compatible with 3.5, and nothing in the PF core rules specifically contradicts those books. So I am actually well supported by RAW in most of this, it is just not PF Core RAW.
Which splat books.
We are however not supposed to require access to 3.5 in order to resolve these issues.
Not really. Most of this is based on 3.5 splat books which do a great job of clarifying the why's and how's of sneaky spellcasting. Pathfinder is meant to be backwards compatible with 3.5, and nothing in the PF core rules specifically contradicts those books. So I am actually well supported by RAW in most of this, it is just not PF Core RAW.
Agreed, which is why I am trying to adapt that stuff into the PF Core RAW, the problem is that when it comes to stuff like bluff and sense motive, the PF RAW is very vague(intentionally so IMO) on the specifics of what you can and cannot do.
Which splat books.
Off the top of my head, Song and Silence, Complete Scoundrel, and maybe Complete Arcane. I am also going from memory, so there is a good chance that some of this stuff is attached to feats.
I am pretty sure I remember one of those books having a feat that lets you make a bluff check to make your spell cast look like something else. IE make a silent image spell look like summon monster I.
I think that may be a Bard thing. I'll look later.
Which splat books.Off the top of my head, Song and Silence, Complete Scoundrel, and maybe Complete Arcane. I am also going from memory, so there is a good chance that some of this stuff is attached to feats.
I am pretty sure I remember one of those books having a feat that lets you make a bluff check to make your spell cast look like something else. IE make a silent image spell look like summon monster I.
Complete Scoundrel has a skill trick that lets you hide one spell being cast per encounter. I think that's it, though.
Off the top of my head, Song and Silence, Complete Scoundrel, and maybe Complete Arcane. I am also going from memory, so there is a good chance that some of this stuff is attached to feats.
I am pretty sure I remember one of those books having a feat that lets you make a bluff check to make your spell cast look like something else. IE make a silent image spell look like summon monster I.
In the Player Handbook 2 the beguiler has surprise casting which allow you to use feint to deny Dex to opponent for your next casting.
In complete arcana there's the Delay spell, the Energy Substitution and the Sculpt spell (Sculpt Spell was mainly for changing the AoE shape of a spell, from a blast radius to a cone for example, but can also be used to change the visual aspect of spells to confuse others)
And in Cityscape there's the Deceptive spell, it makes a spell appears to come from any direction you choose, not from you and the Invisible Spell which remove all visual effect from a spell.
There's also Disguise Spell but that requires being a Bard.
There's been call for this kind of mechanic, but as you've noticed it doesn't exist.
There's always house rules for it, just think them through. Bluff often eats up an action or takes far longer than a full round, having it take no time or extra concentration doesn't seem reasonable to me. But again that's into house rule territory, which we've been hanging around at for quite some time here.
-James
A lot of this is not strictly against the RAW. It just falls into vague area where there are no hard rules either way.
For example, pretending that you are casting a spell. To me, this is a pretty straight forward bluff(lie) vs sense motive with some supporting spellcraft checks to determine the believibility of the lie. The bluff should take exactly as long as the spell you are pretending to cast. This is fully supported by the PF RAW.
By the RAW, Slight of Hand can conceal small weapons, why not material or somatic components?
By the RAW, Bluff can be used to send messages with double meanings, why can't one of those hidden meanings be the verbal components of a spell?
If you want to be stupidly strict with your RAW interpretations, then you end up in a lot of weird situations where you tell your players that they simply can't do things that should be possible.
Player: I want to do an olympic style triple jump(3 long jumps in a row while preserving your momentum).
DM: Sorry, there are no rules specifically for that in the rulebook, you can't do it.
Being told that you simply cannot do something that is perfectly reasonable does more to destroy willing suspension of disbelief that just about anything else IMO. I would rather let a player try something with a huge penalty then flat out tell them they can't do it at all. As always, YMMV.