I can't recall if this was possible in previous edition but I was wondering if there was a way to cast a spell without someone noticing, such as a Charm Person
FDM
I can't recall if this was possible in previous edition but I was wondering if there was a way to cast a spell without someone noticing, such as a Charm Person
FDM
I've thought about this with my own Enchanter, and think stealth could be pulled off with adding both Still Spell and Silent Spell metamagic. Kind of an expensive spell slot that way, so metamagic rods would be nice.
Or, how about Improved Invisibility plus Silent Spell?
How about something like this?
Stealth Caster
Benefit: Whenever you cast a spell, you may make a sleight of hand check. To perceive your somatic components, creatures must make opposed perception checks, modified by distance and visibility as normal.
Combine that with silent spell and you can be sneaky with only a single spell level increase.
If your DM is inclined, you might even be able to get away with doing that without the feat at all, simply as an additional use of sleight of hand.
To cast a spell you need to speak in a strong Firm voice. In our last game the Dm looked at the DCS and seemed about dc 20 to hear spellcasting from 100 feet or so ( i might be remembering the numbers wrong)
But basicaly, you need silent spell and still spell if you do not want to be seen or heard casting.
Some tread were this was talked about
[OFFICIAL QUESTION] SILENT/STILL/ESCHEW/QUICKEN SPELL AND SPELLCRAFT
Never say an offical reply tho
SPELLCRAFTING STILL/SILENT SPELLS?
Another good thread
.......
I still want to know, how many people would notice a squirrel sitting in a tree. If that squirrel was a druid, using the silent, still, Natural Spell/Eschew Materials feats. Casting a spell (+2 spell level), like entangle, with a 400 + 40 feet per level range from the squirrel.
It's a very qualified yes, and a very situational one.
...
This should outline the spectrum of possibilities.
All excellent points. Also remember that even after you have stilled and/or silenced a spell, almost all spells have a visible effect that comes from you as well. While they will not see you casting they might very well see the spell effect originate with you in any case.
Complete Scoundrel and/or Adventurer had skill tricks that could assist with stealthy spellcasting and I beleive there was an Invisible Spell Feat that made your spell effects totally invisible but I don't remember if that was official WotC material or not.
Cannot dodge a fireball you cannot see eh?
Cool input.
|
You can extrapolate the "sniping" rules to cover this. Of course, casting is much more intensive than pop up, twang, drop down, but that is what the metamagic feats are for. I see no reason why a caster with a decent stealth skill, silent, still, & eschew materials, cannot "snipe" their spells as long as the spell does not require your target to see the caster. Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, Fireball, would all benefit from this.
The game developer's take on it another thread on the same subject:
Hey there Everybody,
The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.
Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.
This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingEdit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.
Also, from Jason's Facebook page in regards to how he would run it in his own games:
The rules are silent on this issue, meaning that it is really up to your GM. I would, personally, rule that each missing component adds +4 to the DC to identify the spell. There are, after all some tell tale markers, even if all of the components are removed. If they are all removed, I might rule it impossible to ID before the effect occurs, but it depends on the circumstances.
Also remember that even after you have stilled and/or silenced a spell, almost all spells have a visible effect that comes from you as well.
What page in the rules does it say this ?
I mean i can understand ray, cones, magic missile, fireball, or other spell that list a visible effect coming from you in there spell description.
But most spell do Not list such an effect, coming from the caster but appearing in the area of effect. When that area of effect is from a medium range (100 +10/level feet) or long range (400 +40/level feet). Well i have a harder time seeing why you can not use silent or still to make it harder to detect the source of the casting.
Also remember that even after you have stilled and/or silenced a spell, almost all spells have a visible effect that comes from you as well.
What page in the rules does it say this ?
I mean i can understand ray, cones, magic missile, fireball, or other spell that list a visible effect coming from you in there spell description.
But most spell do Not list such an effect, coming from the caster but appearing in the area of effect. When that area of effect is from a medium range (100 +10/level feet) or long range (400 +40/level feet). Well i have a harder time seeing why you can not use silent or still to make it harder to detect the source of the casting.
You won't find it because it doesn't exist within the rules, nor should it.
Except for what is explicitly mentioned in the spell description, a spell looks like whatever the GM and/or player want it to look like (or sound like, or smell like, etc.). I personally believe this should be the domain of the player, with the GM stepping in only if a bit of flavor is inappropriate for his campaign.
Kind of like character appearance. It's a matter of preference, not rules.
I personally like to think that spells that don't mention an obvious visual effect don't have one unless you want them to. Take mage armor or bull's strength for example. I could easily describe the otherwise invisible mage armor as flashing whenever it deflects a blow, or the bull's strength causing a noticeable increase in muscle mass. Perhaps my snake-themed amazon wizard channels the power of snakes causing mage armor to turn his skin into hardened reptilian scales whereas bull's strength increases muscle mass, adds skeletal flexibility, and increases crushing power like a constrictor snake. I could also describe both as having no noticeable effect at all (other than I am hard to hit and can hit harder).
Spells like enlarge person and fireball have a little less descriptive leeway, but even those can be flavored to taste. Perhaps my fireball explodes in a black puff of burning ash that dissipates. Perhaps all the targets of my enlarge person spell develop green skin and a tendency to scream "SMASH!" during the spell's duration.
It is not a rule, never was a rule, and never should be a rule.
Regardless of how a spell is described, a Spellcraft check should be able to identify it for what it really is (or, rather, what it does/is going to do). A cliche wizard might not recognize the amazon snake wizard's having been the subject of a mage armor spell as it looks totally different, but rather, he recognizes the effects of the magic being used (that is, his foe is now harder to hit). Regardless of how the CHARACTERS see it, the PLAYER who has made a successful Spellcraft check knows his foe has cast mage armor and is now benefiting from a +4 armor bonus to his AC. This, I find, adds a whole new level to the game that, sadly, many people miss out on. It can be a great roleplaying opportunity for the traditional wizard to mock the inferiority and uncultured savagery of the amazon wizard, even though they are comparable mechanically.
In my games, those using Eschew/Silent/Still Spell cannot have their spells identified (there's nothing to identify, at least not until after the spell is cast), though their moment of necessary concentration still leaves them open to attacks of opportunity, even if their foes don't realize the cause lapse in defense. I know there are a great many people on these boards who disagree. All I can say to that is "to each his own."
In my games, those using Eschew/Silent/Still Spell cannot have their spells identified (there's nothing to identify, at least not until after the spell is cast), though their moment of necessary concentration still leaves them open to attacks of opportunity, even if their foes don't realize the cause lapse in defense. I know there are a great many people on these boards who disagree. All I can say to that is "to each his own."
I like that, although there would be exceptions, in my game.
1) The character has an active detect magic effect (or true seeing etc), then I'd allow the roll as normal.
2) The character has a mind reading effect active.
That would be about it, though.
to the op. arcanevtrickster has a class feature thatbdoescwhatbyoubwant to do
What page in the rules does it say this ?
Also remember that even after you have stilled and/or silenced a spell, almost all spells have a visible effect that comes from you as well.
The instances I refer to are usually described right in the spells it applies to. Note I said ALMOST not 'universaly'.
If you silence and still a fireball for example, the small orb of fire will still originate from you the caster and speed toward it's designated impact point. Obviously he will not be able to know you are casting the spell till it fires but when it does it will still be blatant that it came from you.
Common sense when reading the spell descriptions should make it clear when and if this concept would apply to the spell in question. An no it does not apply to all spells but it can and does to many.