Stealth and Somatic Components

[uriel222]

So, one of my players wanted to hide (via stealth), and cast a spell (with a Silent Spell metamagic rod). I pointed out that he'd still have to use the somatic components of the spell, and required a Stealth roll to remain hidden. After a quick glance at the Stealth modifiers, I considered this akin to "sniping" and applied a -20 modifier, and he, of course, failed.

Afterwards, I've reconsidered. The somatic component can be preformed with just one hand, after all, and a -20 modifier seems harsh. Is there RAW anywhere about this? If this is viable I think he's going to try this more often.

Thanks

[Anburaid]

uriel222 wrote:

So, one of my players wanted to hide (via stealth), and cast a spell (with a Silent Spell metamagic rod). I pointed out that he'd still have to use the somatic components of the spell, and required a Stealth roll to remain hidden. After a quick glance at the Stealth modifiers, I considered this akin to "sniping" and applied a -20 modifier, and he, of course, failed.

Afterwards, I've reconsidered. The somatic component can be preformed with just one hand, after all, and a -20 modifier seems harsh. Is there RAW anywhere about this? If this is viable I think he's going to try this more often.

Thanks

There is no place I know of in the RAW that deals with somatic components and stealth. If it was a ray attack then I think sniping to stay hidden was perfectly fair. If it was a targeted spell or some such then it would depend on the spell, and I might just give the target another perception check to determine if the spellcaster's movements caught his attention.

What was the stealth situation? was the spellcaster behind cover or just concealment? Was it total concealment?

[uriel222]

Just concealment. He was hiding in the shadows of a large building, and trying to cast a silent image.

Later, he was using a feat to be "overlooked" (he's a gnome), but he decided against casting, because there's no pratical way to overcome that -20.

Now, if there was no way for the bad guys to see him at all, say, then I wouldn't apply any penalty. I'm just curious if there's RAW, or even a discussion somewhere, describing how much of a stealth penalty spell-casting accrues. After all, one of the basic principles of stealth is "keep still".

[james maissen]

uriel222 wrote:

So, one of my players wanted to hide (via stealth), and cast a spell (with a Silent Spell metamagic rod). I pointed out that he'd still have to use the somatic components of the spell, and required a Stealth roll to remain hidden.

If it were an attack then I would say that he comes out of hiding, otherwise I would allow him to cast a silent spell without even a need for an additional roll.

You wouldn't require another stealth roll for him to draw an item (weapon/wand/etc) let alone at penalty.

At worst you could apply a penalty 'for moving at full speed' to his existing stealth roll but I wouldn't myself.

-James

[Drejk]

I would probably request Stealth check without penalty, possibly even with bonus (as the movement triggering Stealth check required to cast spell is minimal) as his casting behind concealment is risking that he accidentaly pushes it, depending upon what is actual concealment is. Or if hiding behind branches and bushes that his movement will be seen between the leaves, etc.
If the spell produced visible effect pointing to the caster (rays as mentioned, but also any projectile, magic missile[/i, [i]fireball) sniping penalty would be perfectly appropriate, of course.