I've had this thought for quite a while, imagine this, a person is in front of a spell caster which has a stilled + silent spell, it shouldn't provoke an attack of opportunity since he is no using any somatic components nor even speaking, so technically he doesn't have to drop its guard to cast a spell. Do you agree with me?
There was a comedian that did a bit about wearing a catheter and bag on his leg like what commercial divers do. He used it initially on a long airplane ride when he was in the window seat. He then went on to talk about being lazy and using it all the time. (He was a comedian after all and it was fairly funny the way he tells it.)
My point is that he had a line in there that when he was talking to people he had to concentrate to "go" and they always knew something was going on because he was clearly distracted and had a look on his face. (Think Steve Martin in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels at the dinner table.)
So while you do not have to speak or move your hands. You are still doing something and are distracted. Thus you provoke an AoO.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Along these lines...
Think Empire Strikes back when Vader starts throwing crap at Luke. There's a moment when he's just standing there, then stuff starts flying.
Vader = Still Silent Casting Telekinesis (Well more like Vader manifesting Schism, then his second mind manifesting Telekinesis, but the idea's the same.)
This has been beaten to death before.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Now, on the other hand, if combat had not already been initiated (i.e. initiative has not been rolled) and your opponents did not know you were a spellcaster, I'd certainly say the spellcaster can get off a spell without drawing an attack of opportunity in this case.
If the enemies are aware of your ability to spellcast, though, the expression and concentration would probably clue them in.
Now, on the other hand, if combat had not already been initiated (i.e. initiative has not been rolled) and your opponents did not know you were a spellcaster, I'd certainly say the spellcaster can get off a spell without drawing an attack of opportunity in this case.
If the enemies are aware of your ability to spellcast, though, the expression and concentration would probably clue them in.
That's a dangerous argument. It would mean that monsters that aren't smart enough to know what spellcasting is would never get attacks of opportunity against spellcasters.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
That's a dangerous argument. It would mean that monsters that aren't smart enough to know what spellcasting is would never get attacks of opportunity against spellcasters.
I specifically mean stilled & silent spells and specifically in situations where initiative has not yet been rolled. A thug who has you at knife point is going to stab you if you start wiggling fingers and babbling voodoo, but he might not think to do so if you just start staring at him unless he knows you're a caster.
That's a dangerous argument. It would mean that monsters that aren't smart enough to know what spellcasting is would never get attacks of opportunity against spellcasters.I specifically mean stilled & silent spells and specifically in situations where initiative has not yet been rolled. A thug who has you at knife point is going to stab you if you start wiggling fingers and babbling voodoo, but he might not think to do so if you just start staring at him unless he knows you're a caster.
In short a surprise round, since most spells are standard actions. I still think it is dangerous.
If you have a verbal and somatic spell (no materials, or focus) and you are holding a weapon or a shield, you could pretend to be attacking, or pose a stance or something, so, it might work in my opinion.
If you were pretending to be attacking or something of the sort, I'd probably force the player to make a Concentration check. Otherwise, I'd probably bring up circumstances. A half-hearted attack against an experienced fighter is asking to get whacked with an attack of opportunity. If there's a distraction, such as the target being flanked by a threat, an explosion, or something of the sort and you're not already in combat - then you could argue casting in a surprise round.
I would allow a magic user casting something with still AND silent to not take an AoO. How is an melee person supposed to know that a spell is supposed to go off? They have no frickin' idea.
Its not the verbal or somatic components that provoke. Its the spellcaster standing there doing nothing but concentrating on something, leaving him open for an attack that provokes. The spells components don't affect anything. (Or it would of been called out in the attack of opportunity section that spells without certain components don't provoke.)
Only Quicken Spell, which removes that moment of concentration required, removes the attack of opportunity.
That brings up a good point. Psionic powers don't have verbal or somatic components, yet still provoke.
If a psionic power (which requires only mental concentration to cast) provokes, why would a spell that only requires mental concentration (by removing the somatic and verbal components with Still and Silent Spell)not provoke an AoO?
If you allow a Silent and Still spell to remove the attack of opportunity, you should very well then remove all attacks of opportunity from psionic powers as well.
|
Its not the verbal or somatic components that provoke. Its the spellcaster standing there doing nothing but concentrating on something, leaving him open for an attack that provokes. The spells components don't affect anything. (Or it would of been called out in the attack of opportunity section that spells without certain components don't provoke.)
Only Quicken Spell, which removes that moment of concentration required, removes the attack of opportunity.
Completely false. If they aren't casting a spell, they are usually just standing there. So pretty much, should they provoke an attack of opportunity by just being involved in the middle of melee? There is a huge level of disconnect right there. I mean, how is your fighter supposed to know a spell is about to go off when there are no arcane words happening or funny hand gestures? Did the fighter get an AoO because the character looked constipated?
Can I play a psion in your game? :-)
And no, you cannot play psionics in my game because I do not allow psionics. Or if I do allow them, my psionic NPCs will be far more powerful than you that I'll TPK your party in 1 round. I'm a Pathfinder purist. I also hate psionics and thought they were a horribly implemented idea and thankfully Paizo has not added that crap to this game.
|
An AoO isn't about responding to what you know is happening. It's about taking a free swing when you have an opening.
If you're in active combat trying to down someone and they stand there concentrating, there is opportunity for a free swing - even if the GM might not tell you WHY you're getting an AoO, just that you can take one, if you want.
|
|
An AoO isn't about responding to what you know is happening. It's about taking a free swing when you have an opening.
If you're in active combat trying to down someone and they stand there concentrating, there is opportunity for a free swing - even if the GM might not tell you WHY you're getting an AoO, just that you can take one, if you want.
That's a pretty loose definition of when an AoO is supposed to go off. I would declare then that I can make an AoO just because a person decided not to act in a round. There is totally an opening there because they just stood there and did nothing.
I think you guys are missing the point of AoOs. They happen because someone is moving and your character can see them moving. Whether that's shifting squares or starting to cast a spell - all of these your character can visibly see an action taking place.
A still AND silent spell is not giving off any signals as to what is about to happen.
This was posted in the rules subforum, so.
No.
Neither feat has any language saying that you get to skate by "AoO" free. There is also no text in the combat section saying that by having either or both feats, you don't get the AoO.
Quickening allows you to avoid the AoO. Still and/or Silent spell feats do not.
Unless a feat or other ability expressly allows you to not take the AoO for casting the spell, you take the AoO for casting the spell. silent/stilled are no exception.
-S
I originally thought that if you did a Still+Silent spell that you wouldn't provoke an attack of opportunity. However, that was until I realized that spell-like abilities (which have no material, verbal, or somatic components) provoke attacks.
Yea, the simple act of concentrating on casting a spell/ability is enough for an AoO.
Completely false. If they aren't casting a spell, they are usually just standing there. So pretty much, should they provoke an attack of opportunity by just being involved in the middle of melee? There is a huge level of disconnect right there. I mean, how is your fighter supposed to know a spell is about to go off when there are no arcane words happening or funny hand gestures? Did the fighter get an AoO because the character looked constipated?
No. Even someone not taking any other actions is still aware of his surrounding, watching their opponents, and making sure they don't give them an opening to attack. Casting a spell, even one without somatic and verbal components, still requires the spellcaster to stop what they are doing to concentrate on the spell. The spellcasters mind is elsewhere, and he can not react to defend himself, hence provoking an attack of opportunity.
Spellcasting (usually) requires a standard action - they actually have to do something to cast the spell. Just standing there doesn't require an action. They are not the same thing.
What you are describing (a spellcaster just normally standing there casting a spell with no indication of him doing so) is covered by adding Silent, Still, and Quicken Spell, and Eschew Materials. Those feats remove the majority of components from spells, and makes the act of casting instant, thereby not provoking an AoO. Missing any of those feats, the spellcaster still shows enough action to determine that he is doing something.
What you are describing (a spellcaster just normally standing there casting a spell with no indication of him doing so) is covered by adding Silent, Still, and Quicken Spell, and Eschew Materials. Those feats remove the majority of components from spells, and makes the act of casting instant, thereby not provoking an AoO. Missing any of those feats, the spellcaster still shows enough action to determine that he is doing something.
Quicken by itself is enough to make it happen fast enough that it doesn't provoke. The others are only necessary if you want to cast it without provoking AND not have anyone aware that you cast it in the first place.
Quicken by itself is enough to make it happen fast enough that it doesn't provoke. The others are only necessary if you want to cast it without provoking AND not have anyone aware that you cast it in the first place.
I know that, and believe I had mentioned that in an earlier post. I was also replying to another part of the message I quoted: "I mean, how is your fighter supposed to know a spell is about to go off when there are no arcane words happening or funny hand gestures? Did the fighter get an AoO because the character looked constipated?"
Only by using all of those feats would give a fighter no chance of knowing the wizard was doing something. But yes, only the Quicken spell feat is needed to remove the AoO.
|
An AoO isn't about responding to what you know is happening. It's about taking a free swing when you have an opening.
If you're in active combat trying to down someone and they stand there concentrating, there is opportunity for a free swing - even if the GM might not tell you WHY you're getting an AoO, just that you can take one, if you want.
That's a pretty loose definition of when an AoO is supposed to go off. I would declare then that I can make an AoO just because a person decided not to act in a round. There is totally an opening there because they just stood there and did nothing.
Taking no action is not he same as just standing still. In fact if you are standing still when you take no action in combat, not only are you open to AoO...your open to sneak attack and CDG as you are taking no actions to defend yourself.
|
|
What you are describing (a spellcaster just normally standing there casting a spell with no indication of him doing so) is covered by adding Silent, Still, and Quicken Spell, and Eschew Materials. Those feats remove the majority of components from spells, and makes the act of casting instant, thereby not provoking an AoO. Missing any of those feats, the spellcaster still shows enough action to determine that he is doing something.
I can live with that, although I still have a problem visualizing that in combat. I dunno, I like to visualize the rounds as they happen and this just kind of perplexes me...
|
|
A still AND silent spell is not giving off any signals as to what is about to happen.*dryly* A still/silent spell still provokes an AoO. I'm sure a 'pathfinder purist' such as yourself wouldn't want to *gasp* make a house rule that says otherwise.
Pathfinder purist in the sense I don't deal with material not written by Paizo. Now I didn't say anything about being able to tinker within the system, Mr. Put Words In My Mouth! :P
|
|
Your explanation is good but it misses the basic point. It's not about the fighter "knowing" the wizard is casting a spell. It's about the wizard slacking off his active defense to cast a spell as it would be neccessary to do so if the spell is not quickened.
I can't visualize how the defenses are slack if you don't have to move or talk or do anything extra. I guess this is my fundamental problem.
Imagine you have a spell with somatic and verbal components.
It takes 4 seconds to cast. (abstracted, assuming move takes 2 and standard 4 since you can't change your move into a standard ;p)
So you are taking 4 seconds to concentrate on your spell, wave your arms around, and spew out pretty words.
You Silence the spell.
You are taking 4 seconds to concentrate on your spell and wave your arms around.
You silence and still the spell.
You are /still/ taking 4 seconds to concentrate and cast the spell- you just aren't using those 4 seconds to spout gibberish and wave your arms around.
If you take 4 seconds to stop and cast a spell someone gets a chance to stab you with a sharp object. Why? Because you have stopped and are concentrating on casting the spell.
If you want to Not stop and cast the spell but still cast it- then quicken it. Quickening it explicitly removes the AoO (but oddly enough, not the hand waiving or word sputtering.. go figure.. guess you just wave and splutter very quickly).
We think of "I'm not arm waiving and that was 1/3 the spell. Now I'm not talking and that was another 1/3, so if I eschew it no one knows I'm casting because I'm not really doing anything so there's no AoO"
but in reality you /are/ doing something. You are spending the same exact amount of time "casting" as you are without still/silenceing it. You are stopping and casting- the issue is whether you are standing still and concentrating or concentrating while flailing your arms and sputtering gibberish.
-S
|
|
Rounds take 6 seconds.
Picture a boxer in the middle of a slugfest taking 6 seconds to listen to and focus entirely on what a fan tells him rather then defending himself and attacking his opponent.
Boxer "Wow she just flashed me her boobies, damn I am going to score with her tongiht.... Why am I looking at the ceiling?"
No I know, but that's not how I picture it. Someone made the post of doing math on an abacus vs. in your head while playing Basketball. TBH, the in your head stuff is totally easier, and is more in line with how I envision a silent AND still spell going off. But then again, I always think of complex things while doing physical activities, and maybe that's why I never went pro! LOL :)
I agree per RAW that you still provoke an AoO even using a Still+Silent spell (even with Eschew Materials).
However, people keep bringing up the aspect that you are concentrating. If that is the case, I think it would be viable to attempt a Bluff check to hide yourself concentrating.
Of course that would be a GM call and is technically houserule, but I could see it a reasonable request.
Edit: Thinking about it more, I guess by RAW you could attempt a Bluff check to cover your spellcasting, period. Although I could see a bonus if you are casting a Still+Silent spell.
Why not just make the spellcraft check to fight defensively and be done with it? Its not like the check is difficult or anything. if i was going to "houserule" something it would be that spellcraft works off your casting DC rather than intelligence so that it's equally easy for everyone and go from there. No real need to add another skill in when they already have a skill check in place that covers the issue.
-S
An AoO isn't about responding to what you know is happening. It's about taking a free swing when you have an opening.
If you're in active combat trying to down someone and they stand there concentrating, there is opportunity for a free swing - even if the GM might not tell you WHY you're getting an AoO, just that you can take one, if you want.
That's a pretty loose definition of when an AoO is supposed to go off. I would declare then that I can make an AoO just because a person decided not to act in a round. There is totally an opening there because they just stood there and did nothing.
I think you guys are missing the point of AoOs. They happen because someone is moving and your character can see them moving. Whether that's shifting squares or starting to cast a spell - all of these your character can visibly see an action taking place.
A still AND silent spell is not giving off any signals as to what is about to happen.
By that logic psionics and SLA's don't provoke, but they do by the rules.
The psion and the monster using an SLA don't require any gestures or sounds to get a power to go off.
Why not just make the spellcraft check to fight defensively and be done with it? Its not like the check is difficult or anything. if i was going to "houserule" something it would be that spellcraft works off your casting DC rather than intelligence so that it's equally easy for everyone and go from there. No real need to add another skill in when they already have a skill check in place that covers the issue.
-S
Well, I have found casting defensively to be more difficult in Pathfinder in general. You only have your CL (besides possibly having Combat Casting) with the roll. With Bluff, you could have the normal ranks, plus any bonsuses.
Besides, that only covers combat. There may be roleplay instances where casting defensively would not come into play and you may want to hide you are spellcasting.
I agree per RAW that you still provoke an AoO even using a Still+Silent spell (even with Eschew Materials).
However, people keep bringing up the aspect that you are concentrating. If that is the case, I think it would be viable to attempt a Bluff check to hide yourself concentrating.
Of course that would be a GM call and is technically houserule, but I could see it a reasonable request.
Edit: Thinking about it more, I guess by RAW you could attempt a Bluff check to cover your spellcasting, period. Although I could see a bonus if you are casting a Still+Silent spell.
Not really. You can't do the bluff and do the spell simultaneously. There is also no way to pretend to not be concentrating on something in the game anyway. This is not a new debate. By RAW and RAI it is not legal, and the two were never meant to be combined. With that side, anyone that likes the idea is free to houserule it.
Ahh you are right, concentration changed. duh me lol :)
its d20+CL+caster stat, with DC: 15+double spell level.
I wouldn't expect a DM to make that any easier than it already is for you to do though. What you are basically trying to do is make a skill check to do away with a concentration check hoping that your 3+rank+wis will beat their probable-low sense motive rather than the 17+ concentration DC.
As a DM, I wouldn't allow that in combat.
Out of combat though I wouldn't have a problem with someone making a bluff check to hide they are casting a spell- just because most folks don't go around inspecting people for spell casting.
(if you stand still for 4 seconds on a street folks may move around you, figure you are nuts or thinking but most won't jump to the conclusion that you are casting a spell.. at least absent evidence to the contrary: like the bead of a fireball shooting away from you or some such).
Not sure about the DC though. It sounds good as an initial thought but then I think about folks wandering around with really high bluff checks able to cast spells at nearly anyone with little consequence.. such as charm, the various divinations and such.
I dunno.. if I was the DM I'd have to ponder it awhile.
-S
Not really. You can't do the bluff and do the spell simultaneously. There is also no way to pretend to not be concentrating on something in the game anyway. This is not a new debate. By RAW and RAI it is not legal, and the two were never meant to be combined. With that side, anyone that likes the idea is free to houserule it.
Oh, I wasn’t arguing per RAW this was the case. Although RAI is debatable, unless you can post a link where a developer indicated that was not the intention to combine the two.
But you are right, it is mainly a houserule. I can see it something our GM allowing during combat or even away from combat. As for 'not being able to pretend not concentrating’, sure you can, that falls under Bluff. There is no hard list of rules where you can and cannot Bluff, it’s up to GM’s discretion.
@ Selgard, fair enough with your rulings.
One thing I wanted to add, sure, those with high Bluff checks could go around casting Charm person, but remember there can/should be consequences to that. If not from the people they are charming, but alignment-wise if they charm them for nefarious means. And if they are already evil, then they should be doing that! :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd add, that silent/still can still make the point of origin hard to come from. If a wizard is standing in a crowd on the street and casts a still/silent resiliant sphere to keep a wagon from running down the group of school children, the rest of the crowd isn't going to see the mage as the caster.
Someone looking to sucker punch the mage, will notice he's distracted/concentrating/not fully aware of his surroundings.
To use another (psionic!) example. In the duel between Xavier and the Shadow King in their first encounter, to the bystanders, there was nothing to draw attention to either of them, until Farouk fell over dead. But at the same time, both were engrossed in major psychic combat on the astral plane. For either of them, walking up and whacking them in the head with a sock full of pennies would have been easy.
The RAW/RAI issue is actually fairly clear. Every action takes so much time to accomplish and there's no mechanic to combine spell casting with a bluff check or feint.
Rules as Intended, there isn't a way to combine them in the current system- not unless I missed a skill write up, combat action or feat somewhere. (which is possible- I haven't exactly written a thesis on this or anything)
Feinting in combat is at best a standard action.
Using a "proper bluff" is at least 1 round, longer for an elaborate or complicated lie.
Spell casting is the single most powerful standard action that exists in the game. They made it harder from 3.0/5 to side step the AoO (the mechanic itself is harder, there are step up feats and its progeny, etc..)
I do not think it an accident that there is no hard wired mechanic to let someone bluff their way out of it. Not when they already went out of their way to remove the skill check from it in the first place.
I would sit down and think this over long and hard before allowing a player to skirt around the rules as is. It's difficult for a caster on purpose.
-S
Not really. You can't do the bluff and do the spell simultaneously. There is also no way to pretend to not be concentrating on something in the game anyway. This is not a new debate. By RAW and RAI it is not legal, and the two were never meant to be combined. With that side, anyone that likes the idea is free to houserule it.Oh, I wasn’t arguing per RAW this was the case. Although RAI is debatable, unless you can post a link where a developer indicated that was not the intention to combine the two.
But you are right, it is mainly a houserule. I can see it something our GM allowing during combat or even away from combat. As for 'not being able to pretend not concentrating’, sure you can, that falls under Bluff. There is no hard list of rules where you can and cannot Bluff, it’s up to GM’s discretion.
@ Selgard, fair enough with your rulings.
Bluff takes an action, and so does the spell. You can't without exception perform two actions simutaneously. Skill checks are also generally a standard action unless otherwise stated so it you can not bluff and cast a spell at the same time.
Anything is debatable even when developers post people still debate the issue. It is not RAI because neither one has any text to support the notion. What is an SLA or psionic power but a silenced, stilled ability?Also from the 3.5 FAQ:
A spell-like ability is essentially a spell without verbal,
somatic, or material components (and is described on page 180
of the Player’s Handbook as being activated “mentally”) so
that qualifies as purely mental. This would also include psi-like
abilities.This bolded area is important because it describes a stilled silenced also. Before the "3.5 isn't pathfinder" argument comes up, the wording of the these feats has not changed, therefore the meaning behind them has not changed.
PRD:Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components).
Ok, I stand corrected.
Although to be fair, I was not making any arguments RAW about a Still+Silent not provoking AoO’s. I agree with that. My question was on RAI in regards to using Bluff and casting a spell. Selgard explained it well enough, though.
Ok, I stand corrected.
Although to be fair, I was not making any arguments RAW about a Still+Silent not provoking AoO’s. I agree with that. My question was on RAI in regards to using Bluff and casting a spell. Selgard explained it well enough, though.
With Improved Feint, it's possible to feint and cast a spell in one round. It is not possible to use the bluff skill in any other manner in conjunction with casting a spell unless a) the spell is cast as a free, swift, or immediate action, b) you have a special ability from a class or similar sort that modifies this rule, or c) you are delivering a secret message that is ruled to take less than a standard action (this rule is RAI since it is difficult to gauge how long a given message may take to relay. a hidden message takes twice as long to relay as normal, but the metagame application does not specify a numerical time frame for a free, swift, or immediate action, which spoken messages often are ruled to represent)