I have seen more than one post about a druid being tiny due to wildshape and impossible to find while casting. From the way I have understood the rules when you attack you give your position away so how is the miniature druid not being found.
Assuming the previous paragraph is wrong doesn't making noise/speaking count against stealth when casting a spell or does a wildshaped druid effectively get the silent spell feat for free since they don't have to "speak" when casting.
|
its easy enough to hide where you have line of sight/effect to an enemy and they dont have the same to you.
become a small/tiny animal and hide in a hole in a tree, or on top of a tree, or in a small cave, or where ever. what your doing is obvious, but the opponent doesnt know where the sound is coming from, and may not see due to cover, if done smart. also you need natural spell to cast in wild shaped form, but it says "You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell." so the sounds may not sound too out of the ordinary.
its easy enough to hide where you have line of sight/effect to an enemy and they dont have the same to you.
become a small/tiny animal and hide in a hole in a tree, or on top of a tree, or in a small cave, or where ever. what your doing is obvious, but the opponent doesnt know where the sound is coming from, and may not see due to cover, if done smart. also you need natural spell to cast in wild shaped form, but it says "You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell." so the sounds may not sound too out of the ordinary.
Line of sight and affect go both ways. You may have cover from attacks, but they can still see you even it is a penalty to it. Now if the "attack=auto detected" rule is no longer in play then I may have to think of another way to handle the issue.
I will probably need someone to give me a specific example(s).|
|
depends on spell. flame strike and call lightning dont reveal where they came from. those rain from the sky. summon's appears out of thin air. as long as its not a ray or touch you dont automatically know where spells come from.
with flame strike and call lightning for example all you know is they came from above you.
spells like fire seeds would give you away, but control winds or ice storm wouldnt.
spells dont fly from you unless they're rays, they just appear where the caster decides unless they say otherwise (like fireball says, but thats not a druid spell)
I have seen more than one post about a druid being tiny due to wildshape and impossible to find while casting. From the way I have understood the rules when you attack you give your position away so how is the miniature druid not being found.
Assuming the previous paragraph is wrong doesn't making noise/speaking count against stealth when casting a spell or does a wildshaped druid effectively get the silent spell feat for free since they don't have to "speak" when casting.
I read the title of this thread.
And I have to immediately post a build I made in 3.5 that I never got to run.
5 barbarian, 5 bear warrior, 4 warshaper, 5 ninja, 1 fist of the forest.
I called it Ninja Bear. I gave it the vow of poverty feat for hilarity. The rest, you can figure out from the class combinations just how hilarious this thing would be.
I really don't get the difference between that and a wizard/sorc who can do something similar with greater invisiblility and can still get it one level sooner than a druid can WS into a diminutive animal. Heck they can get a silent metamagic rod pretty cheep and make it even more imposible to be found.
To me things would work this way. I am a level 8 druid and WS into a toad and hide in a tree to wait for the bad guy to come wondering by (because that happens a lot). I poke my head out and start croaking really loudly and hopping all around and making strange movements to take place of the V and S components of my spells. While I may have some cover in the end both would have LoS of each other. If you want to try to stealth after casting to hide in the tree or whatever, which I am not sure I would alowe, but if I did I would use the sniping rules where you get -20 to your stealth check. You get +12 for being diminutive so all together you get -8 to even make the bad guy have to roll a perception check to see if he sees a frog acting strange and all of a sudden flames are around him. I guess being a bat would be a little better...at least you could fly away when he found you.
I really don't get the difference between that and a wizard/sorc who can do something similar with greater invisiblility and can still get it one level sooner than a druid can WS into a diminutive animal. Heck they can get a silent metamagic rod pretty cheep and make it even more imposible to be found.
You can wildshape all day long, without expending much resources. A wizard would spend an important slot at least until level 11, and even after that, the duration is so limited you have to spend a turn casting it in combat.
Also, greater invisibility is easily broken by see invisibility, true sight, or any kind of noise the invisible character does. And without a metamagic rod of silent, everyone knows you're a caster. A chirping bird doesn't give itself away as easily. Being tiny gives a bonus to hide not based on magic, and can't easily be pierced by magic. If you find a way to be diminutive, it's even better - a +16 bonus to stealth isn't something to sneeze at. Especially since small creatures usually have better than average dexterity.
Can detect magic detect someone who's wildshaped (excluding other magic auras from items or buffs)?
yeah you can gain a +12 to stealth for being deminuative but you can't cast and expect to be able to use a stealth skill. The bird isn't just chirping like a normal bird would. This bird would look like a psyco bird flapping his wings an squawking quite loud. Casting a spell can never be made to look like you can blend in even if you are polymorphed.
I would also like to think my WS is a very importaint resource. I can only use it very few times a day and there is a lot of utility that can come from such an ability and unless I spend all day as a bat WS takes as much time as greater invisibility to use. So while I can spend all day being a bat not only would a be bored as a player with nothing to do I would be unable to effectivly RP and just be able wait for some monsters to attack my party. I wouldn't be able to interact with my group by helping them track use knowledge nature comunicate my perception checks.
Wands and scrolls are very useful for a wizard to have with out taking up spell slots. Lack of spell slots really isn't a good reason for a wizard to not use defensive magic.
what level 8 druid doesn't have a magical item on them.
yeah you can gain a +12 to stealth for being deminuative but you can't cast and expect to be able to use a stealth skill. The bird isn't just chirping like a normal bird would. This bird would look like a psyco bird flapping his wings an squawking quite loud. Casting a spell can never be made to look like you can blend in even if you are polymorphed.
Do you have any rules support for this or are you just speculating wildly?
I would also like to think my WS is a very importaint resource. I can only use it very few times a day and there is a lot of utility that can come from such an ability and unless I spend all day as a bat WS takes as much time as greater invisibility to use. So while I can spend all day being a bat not only would a be bored as a player with nothing to do I would be unable to effectivly RP and just be able wait for some monsters to attack my party. I wouldn't be able to interact with my group by helping them track use knowledge nature comunicate my perception checks.
Of course it's an important resource, but the form that tends to give the absolute most utility uses is that of a small flying creature. An 8th level druid has 24 hours of wild shape with 3 changes allowed. An 8th level wizard has 24 minutes of imp. invis, using his absolutely most restriced and important resource (highest level spells). A wand of imp. invis costs 21000 gp, 2/3 of the total WBL for an 8th level wizard. A scroll costs 700, and might be good to have for that extra-hard fight, but even five of them and you've spent a good amount of your WBL.
One is clearly more restricted than the other.
Of course you could RP as a bat. Sure you won't be a bat when in the king's halls, but when you're in a dangerous area where you expect a fight you could very well RP as a scout. Dang, I've played with a character that was an awakened wolf, and he roleplayed as much as anybody else. And there are many ways to communicate while you're a bat, especially if anyone else is able to speak with animals (like a ranger, gnome, animal cleric, or anyone with a wand or magic item).
EDIT: And the comment on detect magic was a little bit off-topic. The reason I wondered is because it could be a good idea for a ninja druid who's out to scout to leave the magic items at home because of this.
|
I had a druid that pretty much stayed in WS as a bat(normal, not dire, thought he did turn into one at one point), and he would pretend to be the Abjurer's familiar. He was a great scout too.
Anyway, not once during a fight(when he'd fly around) did anyone think he was a druid casting spells... until he cast flame blade and/or produce flame.
With Natural Spell, a druid in bat form can't be heard. They "voice" of a bat was simply to high to hear, and a bat flying around is hard to worry about when an enemy wizard just pushed the fighter close to you so she could full-attack...
Tiny bat with a 3ft sword of fire flying straight for your face. Imagine that for a minute.
OK a couple of things.....
Wild shape
a druid can not be tiny until 6th level.....Natural spell
substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components......While I can appreciate the imagination that sees
"The bird isn't just chirping like a normal bird would. This bird would look like a psyco bird flapping his wings an squawking quite loud"That is not really RAW! Good imagination but totally unjustified...
A druid wants to wildshape so he elects to take the form of something indiginoues to the area such as a seagull when there are "flocks of seagulls" around.
Or something that usually makes noise and moves around when baddies approach such as a sandpiper....
Or the druid actually takes the form of something that can not be heard such as a mole.....
I have experience with moles and they never scream loud enough to be heard.....
Anyone with spellcraft would be able to tell you are casting a spell, even if you are just making normal noises. This is exactly the same as with a silent, stilled spell with no material components. People can still tell that you are casting a spell.
That being said, there is nothing in the rules preventing you from using stealth as part of your action. Stealth is not an action in and of itself, but is usually used in conjunction with your move action, which casting a spell does not do. If you can attack and stealth, I see no reason why you can't cast and stealth. Being tiny just gives you a ecent boost to it.
Actually first you would have to notice......
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.
So first you need a perception check I think this falls into the factors identified as "others"....
So first you have to notice something odd about the pattern the hummingbird is weaving in the air and then you apply spellcraft check.....(assuming you are not distracted by other things).......
I think most people are saying the perception check and failure therof is what is making the druid "ninjaey"........
The other thing is spellcraft and other skills are things you do not things that just happen......
So you might be staring directly at the snake charmer playing his instrument when the spell goes off and blame the apparent bard rather than the snake...........
Then again if you applied spellcraft to the charmer rather than the snake it really would not matter what the result of the spellcraft check is.........
Unless of course you think you can check 100 wizards casting at the same time......
I disagree entirely. You know who is casting the spell. You cannot hide that fact. Spells are obvious. The hummingbird is obviously casting a spell, and if you are looking at it your know it is. If it is hiding through standard concealment, you may not see it, and smaller creatures get bonuses to stealth. If it is flying in front of you, you know exactly what it is doing, just as if it was a person standing in front of you. Being a wierd animal gives you no bennefit in this regard.
|
In the stealth skill, it says If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
If you are making noise that's plainly audible, you can be observed by anyone in the area that isn't deaf. It's DC 0 to notice someone speaking in a normal conversational voice, which I'd think would be the same as the level of noise you'd make spellcasting.
|
yeah you can gain a +12 to stealth for being deminuative but you can't cast and expect to be able to use a stealth skill. The bird isn't just chirping like a normal bird would. This bird would look like a psyco bird flapping his wings an squawking quite loud. Casting a spell can never be made to look like you can blend in even if you are polymorphed.
.
yea, yried this with a driud wildshaped into a goose. my dm ruled i was very noticabled as an unnatural goose. made for a funny scene though
So you are saying that casting a spell is obvious and it makes no difference where you are looking that in fact ....
But you have to know they are there to know they are casting a spell....
How exactly is it obvious that a spell is being cast?
Lets change the plane a little and say this is occuring directly overhead, or all around they are fast little buggers......
So in the example of the snake and snake charmer any one with spellcraft knows at exactly when either one or both of them started casting a spell.
DM: Snakes hisses and weaves in time with the charmers playing.....
YOU: "Watchout a spellcaster!"
Other PCs: All lash out and kill the snake charmer
you:"No the snake you idiots it was casting a spell"and you still automatically know when someone is casting a spell...
Does this also work with a caster under the influence of greater invisibility, do you in fact know the invisible caster is casting a spell and can use spellcraft to identify the spell....These are odd things you are saying...........
The rules for spellcasting say you must be clear and obvious. Silent, stilled spells are still detectable. There are currently no rules for hiding spellcasting. 3.5 had a couple, at least 1 using bluff checks, but none of them have been transfered to Pathfinder.
In the case of the snake charmer, yes you would be able to tell which one is casting the spell. Anyone who knows anything about magic can tell. People who don't know about magic may be fooled though.
As far as overhead or moving goes, in d&d and pathfinder, you are considered to have 360 vision and see everything in plane sight. There are no rules for distractions blocking things in plane sight. The humming bird will be in plane sight, and thus you will see it casting the spell.
For someone with invisibility, you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, incuring the same penalties as perception, to identify it. An invisible opponent gets a +20, but if you can beat that then you can identify the spell.
Then wild shape/natural spell feat are pointless!
No they are not. They allow you to cast spells while wildshaped. This is a huge boon. People can still tell that you are casting spells, just as if they could if you were not wildshaped.
No they are not. They allow you to cast spells while wildshaped.
+1
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
I guess the ninja-druid concept depends on how a DM would see it since it could go either say. I saw someone say they banned wildshape due to the concept, but I was not sure how valid it was. I always figured certain things made you automatically noticed, mostly attacks. Non attacking spell such as summons may or may not be considered as attack. It is a battle-worthy action, which is what the designers may have meant by "attack".
I guess the quesiton to ask is if any other caster were hiding would casting a spell make them noticable.
edit: I meant to say banned natural spell. sorry about that.
IMO, Wild Shape + Natural Spells is an awfully easy way to cast spells and get away with murder (often literally!)
True, a flying wizard casting silent spells under improved invisibility can be just as annoying, but as it has been said before, this combo takes much more planning, resources and baddies are usually better equipped to face this situation. In addition, more wizard spells are likely to give out the location of the (invisible) wizard, while most druid spells don't have a point of origin coming directly out of the druid's hand.
One one side, RAW suggest that's its just as easy to spot a small wizard casting than a Wild Shaped druid morphed into a badger, but any other sensible interpretation of the situation suggest otherwise. So it comes down to:
Stick to RAW and have frustrated druids as any peasant spontaneously spot their canary guise, or
Apply logic and face an overpowered feat - class feature combo.
'findel
|
|
How would you all rule if a druid wild shaped into a rat and then cast summon swarm (rat). Would you allow him to run along with the swarm unmolested? Would someone be able to target the wild shaped rat amongst the other 300 rats?
How about if he were to summon nature's ally and ended up with 5 eagles while wild shaped as an eagle? Would that be the same as mirror image that don't disappear when hit unless you kill them?
If a certain movement or noise was made every time a spell went off I would get suspicious. I would also think that this tactic has been used by druids before, and might be common enough that the DM should be able to deal with it, without being accused of metagaming.
In other words I do think taking a penalty to your stealth check is fair.
How would you all rule if a druid wild shaped into a rat and then cast summon swarm (rat). Would you allow him to run along with the swarm unmolested? Would someone be able to target the wild shaped rat amongst the other 300 rats?
How about if he were to summon nature's ally and ended up with 5 eagles while wild shaped as an eagle? Would that be the same as mirror image that don't disappear when hit unless you kill them?
I used something like this recently against my party. They were attempting to destroy a series of water locks (think Panama Canal) that were being maintained by some evil druids and their followers. The waterways created by the locks were inhabited by swarms of piranha (basically a fish farm setup). One druid was IN the water, wild-shaped into a piranha, and had the Natural Spell feat.
Round after round, the party kept getting attacked by water elementals rising out of the pools. It took several rounds to figure out that the elementals weren't there to start, but were being summoned. Luckily for them, they made the intuitive leap that there was a shape-changed druid in the pool (one of the PC's is a druid, so that helped).
How did they find the baddie? They used their magic. One of the party members could cast deathwatch as a spell-like ability (because who memorizes that?), and took a look at the pool, while another party member fireballed the swarm. Deathwatcher immediately noticed that one creature stood apart as a seperate entity from the swarm, and was not particularly hurt, comparatively. The druid took care of the rest, by turning into a freaking dire shark and EATING the swarm AND druid in very short time.
IMO, Wild Shape + Natural Spells is an awfully easy way to cast spells and get away with murder (often literally!)
True, a flying wizard casting silent spells under improved invisibility can be just as annoying, but as it has been said before, this combo takes much more planning, resources and baddies are usually better equipped to face this situation. In addition, more wizard spells are likely to give out the location of the (invisible) wizard, while most druid spells don't have a point of origin coming directly out of the druid's hand.
Or you can use the silliest class combo I ever thought up and go Druid/Assassin. Turn into a rat, bite a dude on the leg for death attack. Yeah, there's not a lot of synergy there, but it's a really funny idea.
Now THAT makes sense. They didn't look in the water and see a fish 'flapping its fins in a psycho manner.' They used a logical plan.
I did have a plan for if they looked in the pool for anything OTHER than a buttload of psychotic fish. The druid casting would have had to stop moving with the swarm (full round to cast), and may have been distinctive to anyone making the appropriate Spot check. The DC for it was somewhere in the 30's because of the swarm creating cover, and the fact that he stayed at the BOTTOM of the pool.
The best part was when the party (that thought the fight would be a cakewalk) got their mage engulfed by the first elemental, which then turned right back around and headed for the water. If it hadn't been for two very fast rogues getting some flanking attacks on the elemental (freeing the mage), the group would have seen just how nasty the swarm rules can be. They got very nervous after that near pools of water...
RAW suggest that's its just as easy to spot a small wizard casting than a Wild Shaped druid morphed into a badgerWhat's the reference for this, please?
First, a badger and a gnome (or halfling) are of the same size (small) and both able of the same vocal range (well probably not but for the sake of the rules, I bet they would be).
Natural Spell
Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while using wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
Interpreting the feat strictly for the sake of the rules; the components are substituted, but still there. They could have added a clause stating that spells cast with this feat are harder to identify (as some other feats do), but they haven't. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that a spell cast by a badger is not harder to identify than a spell cast by a wizard. Which brings us to:
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.
Nothing makes the spell of a badger 'less clear to see' than the spell of another small spellcaster. The (verbal and somatic) components are not quite the same - as being performed by an animal - but without precision from the natural spell feat, the RAW suggest that they are just as 'clear' as any others. Similarly to how the 'fluff' about bardic magic (using songs and music) differs from that of your typical wizard (using arcane formulae and geometric gestures), the fluff of a casting badger keeps the same 'crunch' as any other spellcaster: for the trained eye (i.e. someone with ranks in spellcraft), the badger is just as obviously casting a spell than any other creature.
Those are the logical deduction from the rules as written, but in many cases, the ruling is incomplete and does not make any sense.
For example, RAW does not help much about those without training in spellcraft. Even a peasant can tell when a wizard is casting a spell (although the wizard could just as well be bluffing a fake spell). The ruling isn't quite as obvious about a badger. Having ranks in knowledge nature, the peasant could tell that the animal is having a particularly odd behavior, but to conclude that the sudden change in weather was caused by this badger is stretching metagaming a bit far. The peasant will be more likely to believe that a wizard, druid, demon or whatever is hiding somewhere, twisting both animals and weather...
... but PCs are not peasants (and are unlikely to attack them often enough to cause problems from the Natural Spell feat), so it comes down to whether a PC or villain can conclude - not necessarily using the spellcraft skill in order to identify a spell - that the odd badger is the source of the spell without metagaming. THAT is where the rules aren't so clear.
Rule fundamentalists will say that yes, the badger is the obvious source of the spell.
Others (including me) will have different conclusion and will run into issues with Natural Spell
oh and for the record, I house-ruled that Natural Spell allow spells on self only (including animal companion because of bond ability); and it has still been a popular feat for druids.
'findel
Or you can use the silliest class combo I ever thought up and go Druid/Assassin. Turn into a rat, bite a dude on the leg for death attack. Yeah, there's not a lot of synergy there, but it's a really funny idea.IMO, Wild Shape + Natural Spells is an awfully easy way to cast spells and get away with murder (often literally!)
True, a flying wizard casting silent spells under improved invisibility can be just as annoying, but as it has been said before, this combo takes much more planning, resources and baddies are usually better equipped to face this situation. In addition, more wizard spells are likely to give out the location of the (invisible) wizard, while most druid spells don't have a point of origin coming directly out of the druid's hand.
...So now we know the nature of the killer bunny in Monthy Pyton's Quest of the Holy Grail
RAW suggest that's its just as easy to spot a small wizard casting than a Wild Shaped druid morphed into a badgerWhat's the reference for this, please?First, a badger and a gnome (or halfling) are of the same size (small) and both able of the same vocal range (well probably not but for the sake of the rules, I bet they would be).
Natural Spell
Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while using wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
Interpreting the feat strictly for the sake of the rules; the components are substituted, but still there. They could have added a clause stating that spells cast with this feat are harder to identify (as some other feats do), but they haven't. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that a spell cast by a badger is not harder to identify than a spell cast by a wizard. Which brings us to:
Nothing makes the spell of a badger 'less clear to see' than the spell of another small spellcaster. The (verbal and somatic) components are not quite the same - as being performed by an animal - but without precision from the natural spell feat, the RAW suggest that they are just as 'clear' as any others. Similarly to how the 'fluff' about bardic magic (using songs and music) differs from that of your typical wizard (using arcane formulae and geometric gestures), the fluff of a casting badger keeps the same 'crunch' as any other spellcaster: for the trained eye (i.e. someone with ranks in spellcraft), the badger is just as obviously casting a spell than any other creature....
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.
I think it depends on how common the PC classes are in your world. If they are rarely ever seen I think it would be hard to figure out, but they seem common in most novels, so figuring it out is definitely possible in that case.
I will admit I am still up in the air as to handle this one. I want it to be fair for the PC and the NPC's.
I think it depends on how common the PC classes are in your world. If they are rarely ever seen I think it would be hard to figure out, but they seem common in most novels, so figuring it out is definitely possible in that case.
I will admit I am still up in the air as to handle this one. I want it to be fair for the PC and the NPC's.
The example use above was an obvious one. It get trickier when:
The PCs get ambushed by a badger-shaped druid (with Natural Spell) in the woods. Consider the example valid for ambushing PCs as well. The ambushees get flame striked. They would have heard the badger casting, should they have been allowed a perception check to find the source of the sound? Probably, a chipping, grunting badger is likely to be something 'worth a look'. What if it had been a bird or a chipmunk? An eagle 100' above? A beetle on a tree?
Now PCs will add woods + flame strike = druid, therefore, likeliness of wild shapes. To what extent is that common knowledge or metagaming? Since the survival of an adventurer is based on that kind of knowledge, lets assume that the conclusion is legit. The woods are probably full of animals and insects, only, the DM will not going to describe them all! He or she will most likely put on the map only those that are 'enemies'. Normally, many other animals would likely act in an odd behavior, being scared by the flame strike or summoned by the druid (part of the ambush plan right?).
Going further, what if the druid isn't casting anything affecting the PCs or their immediate environment? Is a casting bird 30 feet away obvious enough to allow a perception check? An invisible (but still audible) wizard will definitively raise caution ("guys, I hear spellcasting!") How about: "guys, I hear a bird making weird sounds although I have no ranks in knowledge nature nor spellcraft, but I think it might be spellcasting! That must be a druid. Quick, roll initiative before he casts three or four buffs ahead of us!"
'findel
edit - By the way, I'm not trying to make fun of you at all. Only trying to make a point that came in many of my games.
...lots of stuff...You make sense...but there is one problem. Here is my cut-and-pasted post from above:
There is absolutely nothing in the description of the Spellcraft skill that says it enables you to determine who is casting the spell. The check is to "identify the spell as it is being cast." If you make the check, you can determine that Flame Strike was cast, but that doesn't mean you know who cast it. If there were five clerics in a line, only one of which was casting the spell, and the other four pretending, Spellcraft wouldn't somehow enable you to figure out which one did it. If there is a flock of seagulls overhead, not only would you not know intuitively that one of them had cast the spell, you wouldn't know which one had cast it. You could only IDENTIFY THE SPELL.
Yes, so requiring clear line of sight to the caster of the spell, you can identify what is being cast but not who is casting the spell. And this is no harder than seeing them clearly and knowing the spell. If you don't have clear line of site to the caster, you cannot identify the spell, but that doesn't mean you can tell who is casting the spell... Do I have to tell you how dumb that sounds.
But you are right. There is nothing in the spellcraft skill that says you can identify who is casting a spell. That is because casting a spell is obvious, even when silent and stilled. It requires no check, and as long as you can percieve the caster you can tell that they are casting a spell.
I think it depends on how common the PC classes are in your world. If they are rarely ever seen I think it would be hard to figure out, but they seem common in most novels, so figuring it out is definitely possible in that case.
I will admit I am still up in the air as to handle this one. I want it to be fair for the PC and the NPC's.The example use above was an obvious one. It get trickier when:
The PCs get ambushed by a badger-shaped druid (with Natural Spell) in the woods. Consider the example valid for ambushing PCs as well. The ambushees get flame striked. They would have heard the badger casting, should they have been allowed a perception check to find the source of the sound? Probably, a chipping, grunting badger is likely to be something 'worth a look'. What if it had been a bird or a chipmunk? An eagle 100' above? A beetle on a tree?
Now PCs will add woods + flame strike = druid, therefore, likeliness of wild shapes. To what extent is that common knowledge or metagaming? Since the survival of an adventurer is based on that kind of knowledge, lets assume that the conclusion is legit. The woods are probably full of animals and insects, only, the DM will not going to describe them all! He or she will most likely put on the map only those that are 'enemies'. Normally, many other animals would likely act in an odd behavior, being scared by the flame strike or summoned by the druid (part of the ambush plan right?).
Going further, what if the druid isn't casting anything affecting the PCs or their immediate environment? Is a casting bird 30 feet away obvious enough to allow a perception check? An invisible (but still audible) wizard will definitively raise caution ("guys, I hear spellcasting!") How about: "guys, I hear a bird making weird sounds although I have no ranks in knowledge nature nor spellcraft, but I think it might be spellcasting! That must be a druid. Quick, roll initiative before he casts three or four buffs ahead of us!"
'findel
edit - By the...
No ranks in spellcraft? I am not one to tell another person how to game, but uh.., well they deserve what they get.
No ranks in spellcraft? I am not one to tell another person how to game, but uh.., well they deserve what they get.
Fair enough, but to the PCs' defense, that was in 3.5 when cross-class skills were more painful to acquire.
Otherwise you guys are right, I can't find any text about identifying the CASTER (as oppose to the spell). Mind you, one goes pretty much with the other... Any pointers?
But still by RAW, I find rather far-stretched that a wizard (assuming it has ranks in spellcraft, which it probably has) can tell "Watch out guys, a flame strike is about to be cast!" by simply hearing the substituted tweets of a bird-shaped druid that may not even be visible...
|
My groups have run into hidden casters enough times to develop SOPs for these situations. Usually it involves Web spells, area effect drops, bombs, the party Rogues going super stealth, etc. When your players start acting like commandoes dealing with a sniper...well ya, Hidden casters don't live very long.
Just a few points:
-- Whoever first thought up this combination was playing creatively and is to be commended and would be rewarded in my game. However, now that it is out there, all the copycats who didn't think it up themselves aren't being creative - they are metagaming.
-- I have no real problem with the combo, but see it could be abused, particularly if a druid stays in that form constantly. As a GM, I would deal with that by making sure the player roleplays the difficulties of staying in a tiny form all the time, most importantly the inability to communicate with anyone not using a speak with animals spell. That means no participation in group strategy sessions unless they tranform, no shouting suggestions during combat, no ability to let anyone know about the thief the druid spotted sneaking up behind the wizard. I think a lot of players would get tired of playing under those restrictions quickly and give up the staying in wildshape all the time deal. Failure to apply those restrictions is letting the player get away with too much, in my opinion.
-- For RAW devotees (which I'm not) the combo doesn't work, because spellcasting can always be detected. There was a previous thread that went into a long debate over whether a silent, still spell could be detected, and I was convinced that by RAW, it could. Same would apply here.
-- For those of us less devoted to RAW, or those who need some type of logic to make the game immersive, I would say that it could still be detected, but would probably be more difficult to detect due to small size and the general assumption that small animals aren't going to be casting spells. Difficult doesn't mean impossible, though and characters with either high perception and/or knowledge nature skills should have a good chance.
-- Looking at the rules stated above, I would have to say that the noises and gestures an animal makes when casting a spell are just as different from their normal behavior as are the words and hand movements of a humanoid from its normal behavor. However, fewer people would be familiar with what normal animal behavior would be. That's where knowledge nature comes in.
Bottom line. I will allow the combo in my game, but make the player roleplay being in a tiny form, including the lack of ability to communicate with teammates. I will rule that druid casting in this form can be detected, but not automatically. I would suggest that a DC20 (or maybe 25 if the druid is taking other measures to be unobtrusive) perception roll should do it, with a bonus applied to the roll if the perceiver has any ranks in knowledge nature.