|
I'm asking this question from the perspective of observers who don't have Spellcraft/Knowledge:Arcana. I know people without those skills can't specifically identify spells, but can they deduce the general effects from observable stimuli? I know a fireball is pretty obvious, but what about other spells?
For example, what if someone has a spell like mage armor or shield up? Is there an obvious visual effect to this? When you attack do you notice something is protecting the enemy?
What about something like charm person? When the spell is cast can the charmed person's buddies notice that some sort of spell was cast on the target? Is there any kind of visual effect at all?
I've known some people to gloss over describing these effects and treat the spells like they were not discernible. Is this a GM call or are there specific rules for this? Thanks!
In 3.5 there was a oft-ignored/unknown rule that said that multiple spell effects on a single target (or was it only abjuration effects?) interacted with one another with a visible sparkling type aura. Would sure make the high level adventurer stand out.
I have no idea if that made it through to Pathfinder... I hope not as I don't think it added much to the game.
For example, what if someone has a spell like mage armor or shield up? Is there an obvious visual effect to this? When you attack do you notice something is protecting the enemy?
I would play it as that it is noticable, but I don't know if I would qualify it as an OBVIOUS spell effect. When the character swung at the enemy and missed because of the added AC, I would describe it as the type of armor bonus it is.
Mage Armor: "You hit him hard but your blow seems to bounce off."
Shield: "As you swing gets close to its target it is knocked aside by an unseen force."
What about something like charm person? When the spell is cast can the charmed person's buddies notice that some sort of spell was cast on the target? Is there any kind of visual effect at all?
When the spell is cast they could see the caster chanting and waving his hands around, but no obvious effects on the target... so a silent/still version of a charm spell is a sneaky, sneaky thing.
Once the affected person does something that is out of nature for them, or if there is another reason to do so, a sense motive check can identify that they have been charmed. Sense Motive Skill
I've known some people to gloss over describing these effects and treat the spells like they were not discernible. Is this a GM call or are there specific rules for this? Thanks!
Kind of... unless there is a described effect or an obvious necessary effect (a ranged touch attack or cone would always be traceable back to it's source), then there is not necessarily an effect. But what qualifies as obvious if not spelled out would be a GM call.
Sean Mahoney
There are DC' listed in the books to detect charms and compulsions.(sense motive skill description)
I have always given anyone who attacks a magically protected being knowledge of the presence of special protections if the protection made the difference between a hit or a miss. I also pass this along to any nearby observers descriptively. Many times players have observable effects in mind for the fluff of their spells also. Targets of charm spells can feel the hostile spell.
One thing I wonder about, which is similar to this: What about casting spells unnoticed? Say a sorcerer meets the local baron in his office and needs to ensure his cooperation, and so casts a Silent Charm Person with observers present. Would that character be able to use e.g. Sleight of Hand to obscure or conceal the gestures involved? Or Bluff to make his odd speech seem harmless when casting a Still Charm Person?
Say a sorcerer meets the local baron in his office and needs to ensure his cooperation, and so casts a Silent Charm Person with observers present. Would that character be able to use e.g. Sleight of Hand to obscure or conceal the gestures involved? Or Bluff to make his odd speech seem harmless when casting a Still Charm Person?This. I can't believe there is no clear cut rules for detecting, or hiding, as you cast a spell. Especially for charm person this comes up all the time. Or is there?
As I noted above the DC's to detect in place charms and compulsions are in the sense motive description and I believe at least one other place in the core rules.
The other part I don't know though I'm sure it's come up on the threads.
A Kingmaker NPC is "Not above casting Charm Person to gain allies and bodyguards from among the townsfolk" in a confrontation that occurs in front of a crowd of people.
Pretty sure one of the new books released a feat for subtle spellcasting, though. I know that 3.5 had one in Cityscape.
|
|
In 3.5 there was a oft-ignored/unknown rule that said that multiple spell effects on a single target (or was it only abjuration effects?) interacted with one another with a visible sparkling type aura. Would sure make the high level adventurer stand out.
I have no idea if that made it through to Pathfinder... I hope not as I don't think it added much to the game.
Abjuration
Abjurations are protective spells. They create physical or magical barriers, negate magical or physical abilities, harm trespassers, or even banish the subject of the spell to another plane of existence.
If one abjuration spell is active within 10 feet of another for 24 hours or more, the magical fields interfere with each other and create barely visible energy fluctuations. The DC to find such spells with the Perception skill drops by 4.
Rarely it has any effect on characters or creatures (especially as there is no DC to notice the spells they have active, so reducing a non-existent DC by four do nothing) . It is only meant to lower the difficulty to find static abjuration fields,
Yeah, I don't know that one is spelled out. I would call for a bluff check. If successful you weave the motions in to look like you are just talking with your hands and gesticulating to make a point.
I suppose if a player wanted to say they are waiting for his back to be turned or walk behind him I would make it a stealth check instead.
Then I would have to argue with whatever player that there has to be some check and he can't get still spell feat for free just by describing a situation. lol.
Obviously if you are an enchanter type this matters...
|
|
Yeah, I don't know that one is spelled out. I would call for a bluff check. If successful you weave the motions in to look like you are just talking with your hands and gesticulating to make a point.
I suppose if a player wanted to say they are waiting for his back to be turned or walk behind him I would make it a stealth check instead.
Then I would have to argue with whatever player that there has to be some check and he can't get still spell feat for free just by describing a situation. lol.
Obviously if you are an enchanter type this matters...
What about this feat:
You are particularly adept at communicating with others via innuendo, gestures, and secret hand signs.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on Bluff checks made to pass secret messages. In addition, you are adept at hiding the somatic components of spellcasting. If you cast a spell that has only somatic components, an observer must make a Perception check opposed by your Sleight of Hand check to notice your spellcasting. Spellcraft checks made to identify any spell you cast that has somatic components take a –2 penalty.
Looking at that it seems like there is ordinarily no skill check you can use use to disguise the use of a spell without a feat.
Looks like sleight of hand does it normally for somatics.
The feat you listed is fan created content that requires absalom affinity.
|
|
Looks like sleight of hand does it normally for somatics.
The feat you listed is fan created content that requires absalom affinity.
Well, it's in the Inner Sea World Guide (pg. 288) so that makes it official. I don't see an Absalom affinity requirement there either. Where do you see that slight of hand does it normally for somantic?
Based that on the entry you provided.
Interestingly, even a spell cast without verbal, somatic, or material components is still detected. As I recall, all you need is line of effect to the caster, and you can roll a spellcraft check to know what they're casting. There's an old thread somewhere where this topic was heavily explored.
I argue that if it has no Somatic components, you cannot see the spell as it is being cast and cannot make a check.
In my home game, I allow Spellcraft checks for seeing or hearing the spell being cast, but if a component is eliminated (Still spell, or sitting in a Silence spell) you take a -4. Otherwise invisibility gets even more ridiculous than it normally is because enemy casters cast whatever they want with full secrecy.
Based that on the entry you provided.Ok, that entry says the feat gives you ability to use slight of hand to hide spell casting. There would be no reason to list that if you already could do that with out the feat.
We ran into this with Rhino Charge. Our group had been readying actions to charge for years, then a feat was released to allow us to do what we had permitted ourselves.
That feat is REALLY weird in the light of James (IIRC) comments on how even spells with no components at all are still obvious to anyone who can see the caster.
So if you have that feat, you can use sleight of hand to cast a discreet silent charm person, but you cannot in any way cast a discreet silent stilled charm person.