Does one without spellcraft notice that a nearby creature casts a spell, if the spell has somatic or verbal components?
Do spells without the description mentioning noticable effects, have some effects visible for everybody?
E.g. a fireball is visible from spell description obvious, no reason to assume one does not know that a spell was cast. E.g. a creature casts mage armor. It has somatic and verbal components. Does one notice without check the creature is doing something?
Without check that it looks like a spell?
Does the spell have any visible effect before it acts protectively (e.g. a slight distortion of view around the creature because the physical protection effects also optical qualities of the air)?
Is a check necessary to notice the spell effect when attacking the creature?
And regarding the important question. dispel magic vs area effects needs to name the spell effect per rules. Is a description "that protective something" enough in case for some area, e.g. protection from evil (in case the evil creature noticed it is restrained from entering)?
What is the context of your question? That's the important thing because there are a lot of variables that can be thrown into the situation.
If it's about AOO provocation, noticing is not the issue, it's the drop in defenses you incur when you cast a spell if you don't cast defensively.
General rule for me is that it's not that easy to disguise spellcasting if you're dealing with people who've battled or worked with casters before.
LazarX wrote: What is the context of your question? That's the important thing because there are a lot of variables that can be thrown into the situation.
The context intially is that spellcraft lecking demons with dispel magic at will attack and might decide to dispell spells of the party. For which of course they must deduce that spells were cast/are active and where and how to target the dispell.
As far as i understand they could ready counterspell use of dispel magic vs a party member and then when he casts its just a caster level check.
But the issue might be important in many other circumstances. E.g. a construct is ordered to guard against hostile actions against ones property. Casting a desecrate from the outside would be hostile under most laws (influences value of property often negatively) but does the construct notice assuming it notices the caster standing at property boundary and doing his arm waving or whatever?
Again, the answers to those questions are going to vary on a case by case basis. Not all constructs are the same, some will react to any magic cast, or just the effects of magic landing in their sensing range, others won't be built to sense it. It's important to remember that constructs are usually more like programmed robots than thinking creatures.
It's generally going to be a DM's call.
LazarX wrote:
It's generally going to be a DM's call.
No, its a question about what a normal creature noticeses. E.g. is it, except for specific deception and stealthy spells, aöways glowing stuff streaming from the caster to target area?
Or is it completely invisble except for effects mentioned in the spell text?
Or is it a mix (then it would be DM call), e.g. the mage armor is glimmering around the body, but if trying to hit the creature one notices somethings impeding in a way like a chain shirt?
Outside of special effects listed in a spell the game treats spell casting as saying the words, making the motions, and pulling out the magical treat.
You can choose to have an energies forming effect in your game but that is not how the game treats it.
karkon wrote: Outside of special effects listed in a spell the game treats spell casting as saying the words, making the motions, and pulling out the magical treat.
You can choose to have an energies forming effect in your game but that is not how the game treats it.
The game doesn't really specify. The rules text is limited pretty much to player action mechanics, targets, lines, and areas of effect,essentially the gross war-gaming concerns. The actual visible details on how spells look like when they come into the field isn't really addressed at all, perhaps purposely so so that GM's can tune such descriptions to give individual word flavors to magic.
LazarX wrote: perhaps purposely so so that GM's can tune such descriptions to give individual word flavors to magic. But that is a mistake, as it has game effects.
If you see someone making strange movements and speaking strange words he might inform some scrying watcher about something or he might cast a spell upon himself. If there is some visible effect, you know he is casting a spell.
Even more problematic, assume party is hiding and watching a evil clric and waiting for his guards to depart, so they have better chance to win.
The enemy cleric succeeds his perception check, but instead of attacking he realizes the PCs are waiting and will not attack till he sends his guard away. Instead of informing his guards, he feints (and makes a appropriate skill check)doing some prayer ritual.
The PCs fail their spellcraft checks and so do not notice that instead of praying rounds, he buffs himself with everything he has including summoning some air elementals (decent stealth) behind some corner the PCs cannot see around.
Now the fluff is damn important. If there are additional effects, e.g. some glowing as the shield of faith settles around the cleric, increased biceps size due to bull strength or some air twirling towards the place where the air elemental is summoned, the thing never happens and round 1 the PCs know he saw them.
If there is no fluff effect, then they see - if the cleric casts spells with no visible effect - nothing and their perception and spellcraft check decide whether they face a buffed up cleric plus some elementals plus guards or unbuffed cleric plus guard.
Can anything be concluded from the rules?
The spellcraft check in the counterspell rules is solely to identify the exact spell being cast so that you can choose the correct counterspell. Using dispel to counter works the same regardless of what spell is being cast so it seems reasonable to skip the spellcraft check.
As for the golem guarding example: desecrate includes distributing 5 pounds of silver dust around the area. Imho that is plenty of visible information for the suspicious golem to decide to attack. Ultimately though it is a matter of dm taste what constitutes "hostile" in the mind of a mindless creature.
carn wrote: If there is no fluff effect, then they see - if the cleric casts spells with no visible effect - nothing and their perception and spellcraft check decide whether they face a buffed up cleric plus some elementals plus guards or unbuffed cleric plus guard.
Can anything be concluded from the rules?
It is not possible to change verbal and somatic components of a spell without some type of special ability. They are specific to the spell and have to be performed correctly or else the spell fails, that is why things like arcane spell failure and concentration checks can exist. The party knows for sure that he is performing magic by the nature of the actions he is taking, they should get a sense motive roll to know if his behavior is a reaction to seeing them, they should get a spellcraft check to identify the spells. Summon monsters automatically attack unless ordered to do otherwise so the players would get a perception check (probably easy dc) to hear the cleric speak the orders to remain hidden in elemental language. Plus a possible perception check or sense motive check if the guards react to the elemental appearing, or if any of the players is in a location to hear or see the elemental.
If the players fail all those checks... well sometimes failing rolls is bad for your health.
The rules do not specify whether certain spells have visible or noticeable effects, or not, so it's really up to the DM to make a judgement call a lot of the time. If the spell description doesn"t mention a visible effect, then the DM may decide to add one or not. My advice in the matter would be to be consistent about it... no fair for a PC's mage armor to be a shimmering energy field but then have the bad guys get invisible ones...
Consider the spellsong feat from UM.
You can use it to conceal the fact you are casting a spell. Your bardic performance roll sets the DC for the perception or sense motive checks that others need to make in order to realize you are casting.
This seems to assume that normally, others would be able to recognize your attempt at casting a spell. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any point to this feat.
I thought it was pretty much a given that if you are casting a spell within visual and hearing range of a person that you pretty much know they are casting a spell. Making is so they do not know they are casting a spell id what metamagic feats like still or silent are for.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
