Hi,
my players (spell casters) have some problems with the fact that to cast a spell you have to say it loud (without a metamagic). They wish to whisper it, but they can't do it.
I wish to know, what is the DC to hear a spellcaster casting a spell? or how much noise they have to do, to cast a spell?
The rules are clear:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
Judging by the perception modifier table, I'd say the DC for hearing a spell being cast should result in a -5 modifier to the perception DC. That would be somwhere between "Hear the sound of battle" (DC -10) and "Hear the details of a conversation" (0) since the detailed words are not important. Unless you want to identify the spell with spellcraft, maybe.
Being able to cast a spell without anyone noticing is kind of the point of the silent spell metamagic. Well, that and casting in magical silence.
You unfortunately cannot speak in a whisper to cast a spell.
Spell Components: To cast a spell with a verbal (V) component, your character must speak in a firm voice. If you're gagged or in the area of a silence spell, you can't cast such a spell. A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance to spoil any spell he tries to cast if that spell has a verbal component.
As for what I would assign the DC to hear, it depends on the situation. If they are in a room where combat is not happening, then it would be a straight DC 0, but if in combat, it really depends on what is happening at the time. With the sound of combat, I would assign unfavorable to terrible conditions, depending on what is happening and how loud it is. Unfavorable is a +2 and Terrible is +5. You also need to take in account how far the caster is, as well. For every 10 feet, it is a +1 to the DC for the Perception check on others hearing the spell being cast.
And please note, that appropriate distance modifier (+1/10 ft) applies in the aforementioned DC 0, as well, depending how far they are.
You unfortunately cannot speak in a whisper to cast a spell.
I agree, and the one that he's concerned by that is not a real spellcaster, it's the rogue with minor magic (rogue talent), who wish to cast in a very soft manner rather than shout his spell ;-D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since Minor Magic lets him have it as a Spell-Like Ability, and SLAs do not have any components, the rogue should be fine. :)
Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
Since Minor Magic lets him have it as a Spell-Like Ability, and SLAs do not have any components, the rogue should be fine. :)
Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
You're right!
Strong does not necessarily equal loud.
A lot of people disagree with me, but I read it to mean that you can't falter in your words (as you might when you are deaf).
In my games, you can whisper a spell just as readily as you can whisper a conversation. Just try to get the pronunciation right.
|
Strong does not necessarily equal loud.
A lot of people disagree with me, but I read it to mean that you can't falter in your words (as you might when you are deaf).
In my games, you can whisper a spell just as readily as you can whisper a conversation. Just try to get the pronunciation right.
Agreed, though the rules are quite vague. I just can't force myself to believe that with how powerful magic is, it can't work if you're not speaking loud enough.
Agreed, though the rules are quite vague. I just can't force myself to believe that with how powerful magic is, it can't work if you're not speaking loud enough.Strong does not necessarily equal loud.
A lot of people disagree with me, but I read it to mean that you can't falter in your words (as you might when you are deaf).
In my games, you can whisper a spell just as readily as you can whisper a conversation. Just try to get the pronunciation right.
Agreed. There likely is a point of speaking softly where you can't possibly go lower and still pronounce the word(s) correctly.
I think the whole point is you are not supposed to get a bonus in someone not hearing you cast. Otherwise you are ‘always’ going to get that bonus. I mean why would you not always cast with a low voice?
I am sure the RAW with a ‘firm voice’ means it is clearly audible and the DC is not more difficult for the ‘listener’ if you consciously choose to lower your voice.
I'd use conversation at the least, then normal range penalties. So it's be DC 0 with -5 per 10' of distance, iirc.
I'd use conversation at the least, then normal range penalties. So it's be DC 0 with -5 per 10' of distance, iirc.
That's what I always used (although in PFRPG it's +1 to the DC per 10', not a -5 penalty).
I'd use conversation at the least, then normal range penalties. So it's be DC 0 with -5 per 10' of distance, iirc.
-1 per 10 feet.
I'd use conversation at the least, then normal range penalties. So it's be DC 0 with -5 per 10' of distance, iirc.-1 per 10 feet.
Damn, i didn't rc.
The quieting weapons spell states that if you can whisper you can cast a spell with a verbal component.
Here is the text:
Quieting Weapons spell from Ultimate Intrigue
The target weapons and any ammunition they fire make no sound as part of their normal functions as a weapon. For instance, a firearm’s firing would not make an explosive sound, but if you cast this spell on a creature’s bite attack, it would not prevent it from vocalizing from its mouth. The first time a creature is struck by a weapon affected by this spell, it must succeed at a Will save (SR applies to this effect) or it becomes unable to make noise louder than a whisper (Perception DC 10 to hear) whether vocally or by other means for the duration of the effect. Because the creature can still whisper, this doesn’t interfere with verbal spell components. Whether it succeeds or fails its saving throw, the creature is immune to further effects from this casting of quieting weapons.
Cool weapon ability Chad. I'm pretty sure they didn't know about it since this thread was active 5 years before that book came out.
In regards to verbal spells and percieving them:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
So the general rule is that you must be able to "speak in a strong voice". Being hit by a QUIETING WEAPON gives you specific permission to get around this requirement while under the effects of this spell, but doesn't change the general rule.
Cool weapon ability Chad. I'm pretty sure they didn't know about it since this thread was active 5 years before that book came out.
In regards to verbal spells and percieving them:
Verbal (V): A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.So the general rule is that you must be able to "speak in a strong voice". Being hit by a QUIETING WEAPON gives you specific permission to get around this requirement while under the effects of this spell, but doesn't change the general rule.
Great, now we're gonna have a bunch of mad wizards stabbing themselves in the thigh with magic daggers so they can whisper their spells!
Maybe that's why wizards no longer have a d4 as their hit die, they learned to withstand the pain of a dagger.
Also, I don't know about you, but a whisper can still be a strong voice, it just wont carry as far as an actual yell. The text also alternates between firm and strong, which I would add you can also do while whispering (see any cheesy horror film).
Also the point of silent spell isn't so much to get around having to speak and give yourself away to cast a spell, it's so you can cast the spell when you absolutely cannot speak or make noise in anyway, such as when you are gagged, strangled by a choker, in a silence spell, etc.
I agree that it's unclear, but i disagree on the intend behind the rule.
I interpret ''strong'' and ''firm'' to at least mean something louder than whisper. Otherwise, why not just say whispering is fine?
Given that James Jacobs wrote:
We often illustrate spellcasting with associated glowing magic runes in the air. Smell and sound is absolutely associated with spellcasting as well. It's not something you can do subtly . You need special class abilities or feats or other things to cast spells without showing yourself off. Spellcasting gives away your invisible location as much as shrieking while invisible does.
I think that whispering might be fine, but the intention was that Magic was not something you can easily conceal. Which is somewhat of a shame for illusion and Enchantement spell as it makes them obvious as heck.
Maybe but even "normal conversation" would be drowned out by the sounds of battle, disrupting a chance to hear said caster, and there are plenty of other ways a spell can give away the caster (i.e. any ray spell simply emanating from your square). If you're in a dungeon, how can you pinpoint the square when the sound is echoing off the walls around you.
If they can't see you, why wouldn't they still need to meet the DC as per invisibility to pin point your square, just because you are "talking"? If it's just a matter of being aware a threat is nearby, that's one thing, and most spells will give that away anyway by being a part of combat, but the bigger part that perception gives you is knowing their actual square.
The Perception DC to hear the details of a conversation is 0DC + 1/10DC per 1 foot you are away from the targets.
Hearing someone "Speaking in a Strong Voice" is probably a -5DC to -2DC tbqf, but let's just say it's 0DC for right now.
So the DC to hear someone casting a spell would be: 0DC + 2UnfavorableCondition(CombatNoise) or 5TerribleCondition(CombatNoise) + 5Distracted(Combat) + 1/10DC/ft from SpellCaster
So if a spellcaster is 30ft from you, and you're currently in combat with a roaring dragon, the DC to hear the spellcaster would be 0 + 5 + 5 + 3 = 13DC. If a spellcaster is 100ft from you, and under the same conditions, it would be 0 + 5 + 5 + 10 = 20DC
If there is no dragon or combat distractions, and you're 30ft from the caster, it would be a 0 + 3 = 3DC.
But that's still only hearing them, not pinpointing their square, which should be either +20 or +40 to that DC if we are using just those numbers (and they are invisible; apparently if it is total darkness or they can't see the target at all, you just fail and at best get the direction).
Also, why wouldn't the caster be able to use stealth to hide their casting (especially if there is other noise) and position instead of just a base DC? It's the same as using a physical wall as cover to use some other noise that's louder and closer to the observer as cover for your spell casting. In fact, this is already covered in the perception modifiers for invisibility. You get the +20/40 for specifically having your square identified, but if someone just beats your stealth without that modifier, they can tell if you are anywhere within 30ft, just not specifically where.
But that's still only hearing them, not pinpointing their square, which should be either +20 or +40 to that DC if we are using just those numbers (and they are invisible; apparently if it is total darkness or they can't see the target at all, you just fail and at best get the direction).
Also, why wouldn't the caster be able to use stealth to hide their casting (especially if there is other noise) and position instead of just a base DC? It's the same as using a physical wall as cover to use some other noise that's louder and closer to the observer as cover for your spell casting. In fact, this is already covered in the perception modifiers for invisibility. You get the +20/40 for specifically having your square identified, but if someone just beats your stealth without that modifier, they can tell if you are anywhere within 30ft, just not specifically where.
I just made a basic equation for a non-invisible caster. If he's invisible, or casting from behind a wall/closed door, you as the DM can go to the perception section and put in those DC modifiers yourself. There's a 1000 things that can affect any given Perc check, so that's the DM's responsibility to factor in every variable. But you can start with this equation as a base equation and add variables as you see fit.
0DC(HearStrongVoice) + 2UnfavorableCondition(CombatNoise) or 5TerribleCondition(CombatNoise) + 5Distracted(Combat) + 1/10DC/ft from SpellCaster
But that's still only hearing them, not pinpointing their square, which should be either +20 or +40 to that DC if we are using just those numbers (and they are invisible; apparently if it is total darkness or they can't see the target at all, you just fail and at best get the direction).
Also, why wouldn't the caster be able to use stealth to hide their casting (especially if there is other noise) and position instead of just a base DC? It's the same as using a physical wall as cover to use some other noise that's louder and closer to the observer as cover for your spell casting. In fact, this is already covered in the perception modifiers for invisibility. You get the +20/40 for specifically having your square identified, but if someone just beats your stealth without that modifier, they can tell if you are anywhere within 30ft, just not specifically where.
Also, as far as pinpointing an Invisible Creature using Sight = +20.
I would argue that pinpointing an Invisible Creature using Sound = +0DC. If you're making a ruckus, I can probably tell exactly where you are.
Not sure what your trade irl is, but I work in the aircraft industry, and being hit by a forklift, scissor lift, boom lift, or an expediter in a truck is a real danger. So, they make sure that these vehicles have loud horns beeping to let others know where they are, especially when coming around corners of buildings/structures inside hangars. Granted, these horns are probably 90-95 decibels, but I know exactly where they are, even around corners.
A human screaming is 100+ decibels, a vacuum cleaner is about 70-80 decibels, so I would probably put a Human using a Strong Voice probably between 60-80 decibels. I'm sure that many people have spoken to their significant others while a vacuum is operating, and that's a pretty strong voice.
So I would say if the spellcaster is using a strong voice, you know exactly where they are, or a general direction to run towards at least (and this is your DM call, deciding just how "strong" of a voice is it?). Once they stop casting, you'd probably go back to the +20DC pinpoint rules, but you'd know a general direction of where they are.
Sound is measured in decibels (dB). For reference, normal breathing is about 10 dB, a whisper or rustling leaves 20 dB, and conversation at home are around 50 dB. ... The general recommendation from the Environmental Protection Agency is to limit occupational exposure over 85 dB (about the sound of a lawnmower)
Source: www.healthyhearing.com60 dB
Sound is measured in decibels (dB). A whisper is about 30 dB, normal conversation is about 60 dB, and a motorcycle engine running is about 95 dB. Noise above 70 dB over a prolonged period of time may start to damage your hearing. Loud noise above 120 dB can cause immediate harm to your ears
Source: CDC website
^---- a couple of random google search entries. So, a normal conversation would be 50-60 decibels. Speaking in a Strong Voice is 60-95 decibels, depending on the person. 100+ decibels is screaming at the top of your lungs.
Another thing about decibels is that an increase in 10dB, is 10x as loud (by wattage). So that difference between your 90db horn and even a normal conversation at 60 is a difference of 3 orders of magnitude. I'll admit my hearing is very likely damaged from playing in bands since middle school, but not only can I both not hear what someone is trying to say while its running unless I am right next to them (a white noise effect), but I can guarantee you you wouldn't be able to tell where they were in the house if the vacuum was running and they weren't next to it (as normally is the case when someone is using the vacuum) if they weren't yelling to you.
Now compound that with the acoustic features of a cathedral, because we're in a stone dungeon which has a ridiculous reverb and little bleed off of sound (even less than a normal cathedral if we're in a small room/hallway).
Also, since when do we allow to pinpoint based off of senses other than sight? Even a creature with scent can't pinpoint anyone that isn't directly next to them if they can't see them.
Another thing about decibels is that an increase in 10dB, is 10x as loud (by wattage). So that difference between your 90db horn and even a normal conversation at 60 is a difference of 3 orders of magnitude. I'll admit my hearing is very likely damaged from playing in bands since middle school, but not only can I both not hear what someone is trying to say while its running unless I am right next to them (a white noise effect), but I can guarantee you you wouldn't be able to tell where they were in the house if the vacuum was running and they weren't next to it (as normally is the case when someone is using the vacuum) if they weren't yelling to you.
Now compound that with the acoustic features of a cathedral, because we're in a stone dungeon which has a ridiculous reverb and little bleed off of sound (even less than a normal cathedral if we're in a small room/hallway).
Also, since when do we allow to pinpoint based off of senses other than sight? Even a creature with scent can't pinpoint anyone that isn't directly next to them if they can't see them.
Well the PF rules don't allow you to pinpoint based on sound. So we're just spitballing here.
But if you did allow it, I would argue that Pinpointing an invisible target's based off 60dB+ sound would be +0 DC. IRL, you and I are essentially 0-level people with no ranks in Perception, and if someone is making 60-95decibels-worth of noise that sounds like "ENUM PARTHA NODIS AHM NARATHEKK NOM" within 30ft (or 10 yards), you would know exactly where they're at +/- 5ft. I think Level 10 combat-trained heroes that have experience with invisible targets could do it reliably, but that's why we roll d20's, because there will never be a time when you're just 100% accurate, especially in combat. Understatement of the year: Combat is hectic.
|
|
But that's still only hearing them, not pinpointing their square, which should be either +20 or +40 to that DC if we are using just those numbers (and they are invisible; apparently if it is total darkness or they can't see the target at all, you just fail and at best get the direction).
Hi,
my players (spell casters) have some problems with the fact that to cast a spell you have to say it loud (without a metamagic). They wish to whisper it, but they can't do it.
I wish to know, what is the DC to hear a spellcaster casting a spell? or how much noise they have to do, to cast a spell?
So the question was "how hard is it to hear the spellcasting", not "how hard is to pinpoint the spellcaster". Ryze Kuja is responding to that with a valid reply.
Also, why wouldn't the caster be able to use stealth to hide their casting (especially if there is other noise) and position instead of just a base DC? It's the same as using a physical wall as cover to use some other noise that's louder and closer to the observer as cover for your spell casting. In fact, this is already covered in the perception modifiers for invisibility. You get the +20/40 for specifically having your square identified, but if someone just beats your stealth without that modifier, they can tell if you are anywhere within 30ft, just not specifically where.
Different question. There are several reasons why you can't hide your spellcasting if you are in plain sight and easily heard, but all are dependant on making a successful perception check. A check that, like all perception checks, requires a better result to notice a guy hiding and that differentiate between hearing him and pinpointing him if invisible.
A few points:
1) concealing the casting of a spell while speaking requires a specific feat, Conceal Spell.
It has a heavy feat cost, so, especially if you aren't using Ultimate Intrigue, allowing spellcasters to use it with an appropriate skill check (I would recommend the lowest value between Bluff, Disguise, Sleight of Hand) without the need of taking the feat seems perfectly fine in a home game.
Note that the feat says: "If there is a verbal component, they still hear your loud, clear voice but don’t notice the spell woven within."
2) because of this FAQ:
[quote=FAQ What exactly dod and pellcraft) I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
posted October 2015 | back to top
3) Sure noticing the guy behind a wall, 130' away, casting invisibility is way harder than noticing the guy 5' away, casting Shocking grasp to zap you. Ryze Kuja gave a simple set of modifiers to the perception checks. You can expand them as needed.
|
|
I would argue that pinpointing an Invisible Creature using Sound = +0DC. If you're making a ruckus, I can probably tell exactly where you are.
While I don't agree with "invisibility gives you a +20 to the DC of being heard" that fusing the two skills Move silently and Hide into the single skill Sthealt generated, pinpointing is more difficult than simply knowing the general direction.
I would argue that noticing an invisible creature that makes a ruckus (like your typical paladin in full plate moving around) has a base DC of 0. Pinpointing him has a base DC of 20. Plus distance, his stealth roll (sure ... typical paladin and stealth roll), and whatever other modifier is appliable (the glowing shape of a sword generally is a giveaway).|
|
Well the PF rules don't allow you to pinpoint based on sound. So we're just spitballing here.
We are the guys that still play Pathfinder 1 and argue on the forum .....
;-)Paizo has reduced the number of modifiers as they slow down the game. I think we can decide by ourselves if it is worth it to add ad hoc modifiers depending on the situation. Or even simply decide an appropriate DC based on what we feel is appropriate, as long as it is done in a home game.
When playing a public event it is best to follow the rules or set a DC beforehand, to avoid slowing down the game and to keep the DC constant between the plays.
Yeah, I don't have a house rule for pinpointing based off sound, although after this discussion I think I might make one.
Yeah, you need the feat to hide the fact that there is a spell happening at all, but not just to hide yourself. (And that's if you buy into the "spell manifestations" dumb rule they added in.) And sure, we may be level 0 noobs who can't hear shit, but we're also level 0 noobs who can absolutely understand the concept of using existing sound to mask any noise we make, so the level 10 wizard likely would be pretty good at it if they also threw a bunch of ranks into stealth.
Since @Diego Rossi mentioned move silently, I looked it up, and apparently only beating a move silently by 20 with a listen will let you pinpoint based off sound:
[3.5 Invisibility Special Ability]A creature can use hearing to find an invisible creature. A character can make a Listen check for this purpose as a free action each round. A Listen check result at least equal to the invisible creature’s Move Silently check result reveals its presence. (A creature with no ranks in Move Silently makes a Move Silently check as a Dexterity check to which an armor check penalty applies.) A successful check lets a character hear an invisible creature “over there somewhere.” It’s practically impossible to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature. A Listen check that beats the DC by 20 pinpoints the invisible creature’s location.
So yeah, my recommendation (even if you want to tone that beat by +20 down) is keep the normal rules of the casting of the spell invalidates a stealth check, setting base DC to 0 (plus whatever other normal modifiers would be present, typically +5 distracted, +2/5 conditions, +distance) to simply realize someone they can't see cast a spell, then pinpointing still uses a stealth check +20 DC (perhaps not +40 because casting implies movement within your square, but a still cast could push it back up).
In any case, I mainly mentioned this because it sounded like the specific scenario that the OP mentioned about was talking about pinpointing the rogue. Of course they already found their work around, and there's no way in hell this would be useful to specifically them now, but detecting and pinpointing are completely different end results and it seemed like everyone was talking about the latter.
I realize that they were trying to uncomplicate things by putting Move Silently and Hide into Stealth and then have Spot and Listen turn into Perception, and I agree that it was indeed made less complicated, but then it leaves holes like this. I don't know why they couldn't just put something like "A Listen check that beats the DC by 20 pinpoints the invisible creature’s location" in the Perc rules and wrap this up with a nice neat bow.
They copy and pasted everything else, why'd they stop here /shrug
|
Yeah, you need the feat to hide the fact that there is a spell happening at all, but not just to hide yourself. (And that's if you buy into the "spell manifestations" dumb rule they added in.) And sure, we may be level 0 noobs who can't hear s@$$, but we're also level 0 noobs who can absolutely understand the concept of using existing sound to mask any noise we make, so the level 10 wizard likely would be pretty good at it if they also threw a bunch of ranks into stealth.
Since @Diego Rossi mentioned move silently, I looked it up, and apparently only beating a move silently by 20 with a listen will let you pinpoint based off sound:
[3.5 Invisibility Special Ability]A creature can use hearing to find an invisible creature. A character can make a Listen check for this purpose as a free action each round. A Listen check result at least equal to the invisible creature’s Move Silently check result reveals its presence. (A creature with no ranks in Move Silently makes a Move Silently check as a Dexterity check to which an armor check penalty applies.) A successful check lets a character hear an invisible creature “over there somewhere.” It’s practically impossible to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature. A Listen check that beats the DC by 20 pinpoints the invisible creature’s location.
So yeah, my recommendation (even if you want to tone that beat by +20 down) is keep the normal rules of the casting of the spell invalidates a stealth check, setting base DC to 0 (plus whatever other normal modifiers would be present, typically +5 distracted, +2/5 conditions, +distance) to simply realize someone they can't see cast a spell, then pinpointing still uses a stealth check +20 DC (perhaps not +40 because casting implies movement within your square, but a still cast could push it back up).
In any case, I mainly mentioned this because it sounded like the specific scenario that the OP mentioned about was talking about pinpointing the rogue. Of course they already found their work around, and...
It bugs me as well how they seem to be trying to make magic super obvious in its use. It just feels to me like it should be one or the ohter. If I need detect magic spell to detect magic random NPC's should have no way of knowing magic is at play. If random NPC's are alerted by magic manifestations and the like I shouln't need detect magic to sense it.
In my head I'm thinking the question was asking this question because of a situation like this:
Party comes across an enemy, they made their stealth checks/enemy failed perception checks.
Thinking on what they want to do, the wizard decides a fireball will be best.
Wizard starts casting fireball, but wait, he has to conjure said fireball with a strong and firm voice! The enemy gets a new perception check! They hear him and the Archer enemy on guard duty reacts quickly and shoots the wizard, disrupting the fireball and the ambush that went with it.
Now, none of this was said, this is just my own interpretation of what could be happening.
Essentially, it seems to me that if you're casting a spell, you basically can't be using stealth, based on the rules/faq for what happens when you cast spells.
So, casting a spell means stealth = 0, this is unmodified by your armor/dex/skill/volume because those are integrated into the fact that you just are not using stealth, it just puts you at 0. It's like standing around not trying to hide, it's just 0.(+20 if you're magically invisible)
So the DC to notice you is 0. Plus any distance modifiers, or penalties from other sounds, etc.
In my made up situation, there are no combat sounds so it would only be distance, and if it's dark then that would apply also.
Anyway, just my thoughts...I think that a simple line in stealth saying "You can't use the stealth skill while casting a spell" would solve these problems and give martials one thing they can do that casters can't. :)
Yeah, that's what makes Still Spell and Silent Spell so attractive. Then you can "stealth" your spell castings. Otherwise, as soon as enemies see you start weaving your hands, magical light flashing, and in a strong booming voice you're proclaiming "ENUM PARTHA NODIS AHM NARATHEKK NOM", you might as well have a big Neon sign above your head that says "Eat at Joe's".
|
|
Detect magic is needed to notice active magic, hearing spellcasting is detecting a spell while it is cast. Two completely different things.
Like noticing is a lightning bolt and knowing is a wire is live.
I was refering more to this FAQ . . .
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
If I'm chanting "Alo Kale Kalu" and launch a lightning bolt sure you know that's magic but this implies that even if I use a still, silent spell to boost my diplomacy there'll be manifestation (glowing runes in the air, a sudden wind swirling around, dogs howling in the streets) to prevent me doing exactly what I'm trying to do which is subtly boost my ability to negotiate with a shopkeep. To use your example it means that whenever a wire is live you don't need a volt/ammeter to check voltage/currnt you just look to see if its glowing neon orange or not.
|
|
Yes, the goal is exactly to prevent a wizard from casting dominate on the king during a state function without anyone noticing.
Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" increasing your skill bonus generally have a duration and can be cast some time in advance. Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" charming or dominating the other person or manipulating his mind generally require to target the other person and are an assault. Making them undetectable isn't what the developers want.
|
|
Yes, the goal is exactly to prevent a wizard from casting dominate on the king during a state function without anyone noticing.
Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" increasing your skill bonus generally have a duration and can be cast some time in advance. Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" charming or dominating the other person or manipulating his mind generally require to target the other person and are an assault. Making them undetectable isn't what the developers want.
Which is why I hate it because that's a wonderful plot hook and gives a reason for non-magical kings to have magical protection or a royal wizard watching the event.
|
|
Which is why I hate it because that's a wonderful plot hook and gives a reason for non-magical kings to have magical protection or a royal wizard watching the event.Yes, the goal is exactly to prevent a wizard from casting dominate on the king during a state function without anyone noticing.
Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" increasing your skill bonus generally have a duration and can be cast some time in advance. Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" charming or dominating the other person or manipulating his mind generally require to target the other person and are an assault. Making them undetectable isn't what the developers want.
So, you want a magocracy in every state of the world, as sooner or later the royal wizard will be the guy that will dominate the kind.
So, you want a magocracy in every state of the world, as sooner or later the royal wizard will be the guy that will dominate the kind.Which is why I hate it because that's a wonderful plot hook and gives a reason for non-magical kings to have magical protection or a royal wizard watching the event.Yes, the goal is exactly to prevent a wizard from casting dominate on the king during a state function without anyone noticing.
Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" increasing your skill bonus generally have a duration and can be cast some time in advance. Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" charming or dominating the other person or manipulating his mind generally require to target the other person and are an assault. Making them undetectable isn't what the developers want.
In Golarion ruler are generally fairly high level, because a weak ruler would just succumb to the first threat. So even with stealthier enchantement or illusion spells they would likely be able to resist.
Enchantement isn't the only problem a ruler could face, any 5th level wizard can cast, Flight, invisibility and snipe the royal court with a fireball from 600ft. Sure an average of 17.5 dmg is not too great, but that's not even optimized and that's at 5th level only.
Most fantasy world seems to include magic as an afterthought. Magic is like there, but it isn't really taken into consideration beside some plot device or battle abilities, while it should be as prevalent as science technology is to us today. I'm not an expert on Eberron, but it looks like it's handling the effect of magic in the way it shapes society pretty well.
So, you want a magocracy in every state of the world, as sooner or later the royal wizard will be the guy that will dominate the kind.Which is why I hate it because that's a wonderful plot hook and gives a reason for non-magical kings to have magical protection or a royal wizard watching the event.Yes, the goal is exactly to prevent a wizard from casting dominate on the king during a state function without anyone noticing.
Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" increasing your skill bonus generally have a duration and can be cast some time in advance. Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" charming or dominating the other person or manipulating his mind generally require to target the other person and are an assault. Making them undetectable isn't what the developers want.
"DO YOU WANT A MAGOCRACY? BECAUSE THIS IS HOW YOU GET MAGOCRACIES." ~Archer, probably
Never mind the fact that charming and dominating already have (relatively easy) sense motive DCs for an entourage of courtly supplicants looking to better their position.
|
|
So, you want a magocracy in every state of the world, as sooner or later the royal wizard will be the guy that will dominate the kind.Which is why I hate it because that's a wonderful plot hook and gives a reason for non-magical kings to have magical protection or a royal wizard watching the event.Yes, the goal is exactly to prevent a wizard from casting dominate on the king during a state function without anyone noticing.
Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" increasing your skill bonus generally have a duration and can be cast some time in advance. Spells that "enhance your diplomacy" charming or dominating the other person or manipulating his mind generally require to target the other person and are an assault. Making them undetectable isn't what the developers want.
1) Multiple royal mages who don't like each other.
2) Breed magic into the royal bloodline.3) Make wizard trainining mandatory for your heirs.
4) Royal crown enchanted to make you immune to mind control.
Just a few options.
Also isn't this literally what happened in Razmiran?