RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Yes, but 99.8% of PC parties can identify spells being cast, which makes illusions used in combat particularly tough to use against the PCs, when the first thing they ask when a spell is cast is "I got a 28 on my spellcraft, what spell did he cast?"So it's a good thing 90%+ of the creatures in the game aren't able to identify spells being cast.ShadowcatX: Illusion spells don't work on those who have incontrovertible prove that it is false.
Witnessing them being cast (and identifying the exact illusion spell) just as the illusion appears is something most GMs would consider incontrovertible proof.
Illusion is all about deception and slight of hands, if as a GM you can't figure out ways to misdirect PCs and fool them then maybe stick with fireball and wall of stone. As a GM when using illusions I tend to be a little bit sneakier that that and the players are often fooled at least for a few rounds.
Even if you assume that the players are able to spot illusions cast every time, this doesn't mean the spells don't work as advertised, it means they are conditionally useful spells. It's like saying invisibility is pointless because *some creatures* can see invisible at will.
If you cast "disguise self" in front of a creature, do you honestly expect it will be fooled?
Dennis, I fully agree that many illusion spells are pretty obvious if you cast them in front of your target audience. However, there's a whole type of illusion strategy that is simply foiled by the spellcraft skill. If you want to mix illusions with real affects so that your enemies can never assume what's real or what's an illusion, you're simply out of luck if they have spellcraft. You should be able to cast an illusion of a wall and have your foes think it's a real wall of stone unti they actually deal with the illusion either by a will saving throw, or true seeing, etc. Same goes for mixing illusionary walls of fire with real ones, illusionary monsters with real summoned ones, shadow evocations with real lightning bolts, etc. Also, regarding your disguise self example - yes, it should be obvious that the caster used magic to change, but not necessarily that it's an illusion rather than an alter self spell, or an illusion rather than a polymorph spell if you want to appear to change into a non-humanoid.
Sure, you can go through a lot of deception before casting the spell to enhance the deception, but part of the point of using illusionary magic is to have the magic itself deceive.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"part of the point of using illusionary magic is to have the magic itself deceive."
Which it does, against something like 80% of creatures. You are confusing "Can be overcome with a skill check" with "Is completely pointless". If spellcraft were a universally used skill your point might be valid. It's not though. I haven't run the numbers but I would bet spellcraft is less common than Fire Resistance... are you suggesting fire spells don't do what they intend because they are only of limited use against some creatures?
Considering how awesome illusions can be already, why should they be ramped up more to perfection?
Edit: more stuff
Also, regarding your disguise self example - yes, it should be obvious that the caster used magic to change, but not necessarily that it's an illusion rather than an alter self spell, or an illusion rather than a polymorph spell if you want to appear to change into a non-humanoid.
This is just silly, it's a first level spell with a 10 minute per level duration, what it does is more than appropriate for the level of spell it is. It also doesn't really matter, the whole point of disguise self is to create a *disguise*, if you change in front of them you are not effectively disguised regardless of whether you use alter self or disguise self. Your suggestion does nothing to make the spell better at what it is intended to do and just adds a layer of unnecessary silliness. The only way it would be more effective as a *disguise* is if it appeared that you swapped places with another creature or something totally oddball like that which is way beyond a 1st level spell.
Charm Person: There's nothing stating that victims forget that they were charmed, so they don't.
I just wanted to chime in that while they remember doing the things they did, or even being charmed, but everything they did was seemingly of their own accord. Everything they do while charmed merely seems like a great idea at the time. One could be pissed about it, but then again maybe not. Probably depends on how it plays out.
I once had a PC who used psionic charm on enemies to make them friendly, then let her Diplomacy and good will do the rest. She had at least one friend whom she initially made with the charm, and even told her friend that they were actually enemies and that she charmed her. Since the subject takes it in the most favorable way possible, she willingly let herself be re-charmed many times after, out of fear that she might not feel the same way after the charm wore off. Eventually, the charm was released, but the memories and shared experiences remained, and they remained friends.
In contrast, I once had an NPC sorcerer who was an assassin (in the literary, not the mechanical, sense). She was particularly vicious and sadistic. She used charm person to make people kill themselves with grief, or kill their loved ones who were her real targets. A mere Charisma check versus a small child meant mommy got a knife in the throat while she slept. Or her amusement and sick pleasure she took having a mother kill her entire family, only to come out of the charm realizing everything she did, and then committing suicide out of grief.
Truly, enchantment has more potential for great evils, and is arguably the most evil school of magic. Even more so than Necromancy. Enchantment is by its very nature is a brutal ravaging of free will.
Actually by RAW, eschew and still spell alone stop the spellcraft check, since spellcraft says:
but you must be able to clearly see the spell being cast
If there are no visual cues because of still and eschew, there is noting to be seen, therefore no check. Now people might get a check to notice that you are casting a spell because you're speaking mumbo jumbo, this can be rectified with silent spell.
However, there is still one last obstacle that can't be overcome, only worked around. They can make a knowledge arcana check if the spell targeted them. So they don't get a check for mislead, but they do get a check for charm person. Granted the DC is steep, (25+level) so even most wizards cannot reliably identify the spell (level 5 with 20 int, assuming no skill focus will have a +13, needs a 13 to identify charm person)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how Vuvu answered one of the main questions of this post a month ago, and no one noticed.
Think RD means with charm person they know they got charmed meaning
Me and a bandit are fighting i decide i can charm him and get away i cast my spell.
Said bandit makes a spellcraft and knows the spell im casting but still fails his save.
Bandit is now friendly but knows we were fighting 6 seconds ago and knows why he thinks im his friend.
i can see an jerk DM saying that he knows all this and attacks you friendship not withstanding.
Wouldn't that be conditional to the bandit having spellcraft as a skill? Most bandits wouldn't have that, so it might be less of an issue than you think. Also, even though the foe might have deduced that you just charmed him, it doesn't change the fact that he now feels friendly toward you and would prefer not to attack the man who just "calmed him down with a bit of magic" or somesuch. As another poster said...this is an example of a bad DM, not a spell problem.
Ravingdork wrote:
Charm Person: There's nothing stating that victims forget that they were charmed, so they don't.
I just wanted to chime in that while they remember doing the things they did, or even being charmed, but everything they did was seemingly of their own accord. Everything they do while charmed merely seems like a great idea at the time. One could be pissed about it, but then again maybe not. Probably depends on how it plays out.
I once had a PC who used psionic charm on enemies to make them friendly, then let her Diplomacy and good will do the rest. She had at least one friend whom she initially made with the charm, and even told her friend that they were actually enemies and that she charmed her. Since the subject takes it in the most favorable way possible, she willingly let herself be re-charmed many times after, out of fear that she might not feel the same way after the charm wore off. Eventually, the charm was released, but the memories and shared experiences remained, and they remained friends.
In contrast, I once had an NPC sorcerer who was an assassin (in the literary, not the mechanical, sense). She was particularly vicious and sadistic. She used charm person to make people kill themselves with grief, or kill their loved ones who were her real targets. A mere Charisma check versus a small child meant mommy got a knife in the throat while she slept. Or her amusement and sick pleasure she took having a mother kill her entire family, only to come out of the charm realizing everything she did, and then committing suicide out of grief.
Truly, enchantment has more potential for great evils, and is arguably the most evil school of magic. Even more so than Necromancy. Enchantment is by its very nature is a brutal ravaging of free will.
Those are excellent examples of charm person in action (and also why I think it shouldn't be changed).
I like how Vuvu answered one of the main questions of this post a month ago, and no one noticed.
Well obviously I was using spellsong myself, and all of them just missed that I had answered the question cause it looked like I was merely trolling
Being dominated is against my nature!
Charm Person is so not a combat spell. Cast it at range, out of sight at an NPC, and begin your interaction.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
using spellcraft in combat is a bit dicey. If your dodging around trying not to get slammed by that Orc and his buddies, it's not likely your going to see every move, hear every word, and such that the squishy mage across the room is doing/saying.
Having been in a few all out bar fights, I can tell you your not usually paying attention to anyone expect those in your immediate reach, and if you are paying attention across the room, your going get smacked with a chair.
So if someone calls Spell craft in the middle of combat, I'm going to ask if they want the negative modifier on their AC/CMD or on the spellcraft check. how big that modifier is will vary, but it's gonna be at least a 2 for starters.
using spellcraft in combat is a bit dicey. If your dodging around trying not to get slammed by that Orc and his buddies, it's not likely your going to see every move, hear every word, and such that the squishy mage across the room is doing/saying.
Having been in a few all out bar fights, I can tell you your not usually paying attention to anyone expect those in your immediate reach, and if you are paying attention across the room, your going get smacked with a chair.
So if someone calls Spell craft in the middle of combat, I'm going to ask if they want the negative modifier on their AC/CMD or on the spellcraft check. how big that modifier is will vary, but it's gonna be at least a 2 for starters.
Since it suffers penalties as Perception does, it makes sense that you could tack on a "distracted" penalty.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you could simulate this real easy. Have a friend pick a random youtube video of some politician somewhere saying something about some issue, but not tell you what it is.
now get several other of your friends to try and kill you while your friend with the video, at some point during the mess, hits the play button and then pause it after about 30 seconds. (note that is about 5 combat rounds, nice LOOOOONG spell)
can you tell EXACTLY what point the politician was trying to make? did you even notice the video? try it with someone speaking a language you only have a non fluent familiarity with, making gestures that may not be the same in your culture...
"distracted?" Bah... that's an understatement. lol
At least in the case of charm person we're dealing with a non-issue. Knowing you've been charmed doesn't preclude you being charmed. And if you are charmed - which you are - then you view the actions of the person who charmed you in the best possible light. Clearly they had a good reason. Like... you thought they were a horrible person and needed to die, and they really aren't and don't, so stopping you from killing them was a Good Thing, wasn't it? Wheew! Thank goodness they cast that spell, or else you'd be killing them right now. Close call.
As for illusions at large, keep in mind you don't get any sort of bonus to saves for probability. You don't get to make a Knowledge(nature) check to realize that "gee, lizards don't grow that large and even if they do, they're cold-blooded and don't like snow and glaciers much so they shouldn't be here." You get your save upon interacting.
That said, the way I view illusions is that they create the image in the mind of observers. That is... the image doesn't exist per se. Witnesses believe they see something that is not there. I don't think of illusions as holograms but rather a figment of the observers' imagination. So even though you've seen a caster throw some sort of illusion, your mind remains convinced that the resulting <whatever> is really present.
|
|
Sure, If you got ranks in it that's fine, and if you've got a high CMD that's fine, you can stand a little -5 or 10 modifier for multitasking. Any well trained person in both skills is not going to have any problems here, Someone who is lacking in one area or the other however...
Point is you should be making a perception check to notice scrawny McFingers is at it again while Orcface chairhand is swinging on you and his buddy gobbo DeBackstaba is running around somewhere....
now if you want to actually do more than notice Mr. McFingers, you want to read his fingers and his lips so you know excatly what he's saying over there that's way more attention that just a perception check. you ever try to read sign language AND lips in a bar fight Mr. Commando?
It's hard enough keeping Mr. Mcfinger's hands in sight, much less every curl of his lip.
Fact is Spell checking like that is for non-combat, or maybe for Mr. DeBackstaba (who is hiding behind that potted plant by the by, and thus has a non-combat view of the scene). once your in the thick of it, you ain't identifying jack. just throw your pint at where you last saw Mr. McFingers and the bull rush on over that way to get 'im before he gets you.
Combat is noisy and flashy and FAST. no time for standing their with your thumb in your... ear... while you try to play Mr. arcane interpreter. IF you can do that AND keep your nose one piece, you got some serious high levels going on, which pretty much means you don't need to know WHAT it is. It's BAAAAD. kill him first!
could spend your move action perceiving things, and using your standard to cast spells.
|
|
great in mechanical game terms, but in a real world setting it doesn't work that way. In combat you are dealing with many many things, if you pause to look around you better either be in cover, or your very vulnerable.
"The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand." - Sun Tzu
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand missing something when there is a lot going on. I DON'T think it should be represented by more than a -5 penalty for being distracted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well thank god we're throwing around magic spells and such, otherwise we'd be constrained to the real world :)
|
|
Thanks for posting that video. I was just thinking of it the other day and wondering if I could dig it up.
You make my point for me, While watching that video you are sitting in the corner watching the fight, and you miss a few things because your attention is focused. Imagine you are IN the fight.... get's much harder.
Like I said, I'd start the modifier at a minimum of -2, but the more thats happening, and the more circumstance is against you the more it's going to go up.
also understand I'm not talking about a perception check here, I'm talking about a spellcrafting check. that is not easy in a combat zone, only way you are pulling that off while in combat is if you are very familiar with the one spell that guy happens to be casting, or familiar with the guy himself, such as I've seen him do THAT before and THIS happened...
but random joe blow casting a spell... who trained him, in what language, and from what school, yadda yadda yadda. lot of variables to keep track of in the middle of a war zone. gonna be some big modifiers. just saying.
Being dominated is against my nature!
Even if I let you have TWO safety words?
No?Then how about if I put away the ball gag?
[end silliness]
RAW, it doesn't matter if I can tell what point a politician is making, and given how politicians are, that's really unfair. :)
It matters if the master black belt, Seal scout, or Sherlock Holmes can, but that's still not RAW. RAW, you can make the Spellcraft check in combat.
And I would allow a save as per 'interaction', though if the illusionist play it right, he'll weave it into the battle so naturally that the victim can't discern what is the illusion.
As in, the victim knows the spell, but doesn't know what was made. If it's perfectly reasonable a new warrior joins battle, he'll look somewhere else to find that 'illusion' that's somewhere around here.
Well, once he kills that warrior who, ah, you got me...
As for illusions, I think they are very campaign dependent.
Had a guy casting illusions of dragons, which nobody believed in, so they'd usually save, knowing dragons were only in illusion shows.
But make an Ogre, and "Oh, crap! It's an Ogre! Run!"
Two cents...
JMK
Thanks for posting that video. I was just thinking of it the other day and wondering if I could dig it up.
You make my point for me, While watching that video you are sitting in the corner watching the fight, and you miss a few things because your attention is focused. Imagine you are IN the fight.... get's much harder.
Like I said, I'd start the modifier at a minimum of -2, but the more thats happening, and the more circumstance is against you the more it's going to go up.
also understand I'm not talking about a perception check here, I'm talking about a spellcrafting check. that is not easy in a combat zone, only way you are pulling that off while in combat is if you are very familiar with the one spell that guy happens to be casting, or familiar with the guy himself, such as I've seen him do THAT before and THIS happened...
but random joe blow casting a spell... who trained him, in what language, and from what school, yadda yadda yadda. lot of variables to keep track of in the middle of a war zone. gonna be some big modifiers. just saying.
Are you advocating that they might not get a check at all in some cases, RW?
Me, I'm just advocating the RAW. The rules clearly state that Spellcraft checks made to identify spells take all of the same penalties as Perception checks do.
Therefore...
Perception Modifiers; DC Modifier
Distance to the source, object, or creature; +1/10 feet
Through a closed door; +5
Through a wall; +10/foot of thickness
Unfavorable conditions; +2
Terrible conditions ;+5
Creature making the check is distracted; +5
Creature making the check is asleep; +10
Creature or object is invisible; +20
@Ravingdork: So you can make a Spellcraft check in your sleep? ;)
|
|
Perception Modifiers; DC Modifier
Distance to the source, object, or creature; +1/10 feet
Through a closed door; +5
Through a wall; +10/foot of thickness
Unfavorable conditions; +2
Terrible conditions ;+5
Creature making the check is distracted; +5
Creature making the check is asleep; +10
Creature or object is invisible; +20Hey cool, I get where your going, But what I'm saying is that A perception check in the middle of melee combat on someone across a room, is not just "distracted" and lip reading in said combat zone is going to be harder just than noticing that there is a guy over there talking and pointing. in melee a lot of people are pointing and more than a few are being vocal, picking one in particular out is going to be hard unless you had your eye on him before this all began, which usually isn't the case in full frontal dungeon assaults. there is a reason the spell caster hangs back and lets the meat shield go in first. they don't start looking for you unless A) you just let off a blast spell B) your battlefield control just borked them or C) they are expecting you.
I'm thinking of penalty's like being stealthy while running (-20) are more in line. Spell craft is like any other crafting check. meant to be done while you can put your attention on the subject and look it over and notice the details and reference your memory and such.
being in combat doesn't allow any of that stuff to happen very easily.
I'm on your side here BTW, I'm basically saying if every bady you go up against has spell craft going on to thwart your caster, then I could see that being a problem if he's doing the David Copperfield bit in the spotlight. But in combat with your summoned pit fiend trying to eat his face, your barbarian buddy on his right and your halfling rogue looking to play "sucking chest wounds r us" on his backside, he ain't got time to be spellchecking you without taking some hits, or missing some details. maybe if he goes ethereal and lets everyone wave their hands through him while he's looking you over like a fat boy at a bakery window,but otherwise he better be TCOB with the defense.
At the least I'd stack those modifiers above up instead of only using one.
or maybe just call him invisible until you make a perception check to spot him through the chaos, then apply modifiers above that stack. remember the moonwalking bear was pretty much invisible to most people.
|
I agree, a lot of the illusion spells don't work <as advertised>. Many illusions or at least affects are too to easy to bypass even unintentionally to be affective. Especially from a Dm's point of view. Noticing that an area spell isn't stopped by a section of the wall, or that the rain goes right through the guys your talking to ruins the surprize, but at the same time it's either have the DM intentionally lie to the players or basically give it away for nothing.
Enchantments are less a problem I think, as if the target fails the save (and the spell works) they don't nknow they where affected by magic, and if thye do save, they do not know what sort of magic is trying to affect their mind.
I would also say that most of the death affects (or "Save or Dies") pretty much fail. Harm is another example. With the changes to Save or Dies, Harm is just a high level weaker, almost Save or Die, that can't even kill a target, ever.
@Ravingdork: So you can make a Spellcraft check in your sleep? ;)
With a high penalty, yes, I believe that you could.
You couldn't do anything about it unless you made a Perception check high enough to wake up though.
It would be like when someone wakes you up, tells you something, and you pass out immediately after. When you later are more awake, you sometimes recall what was said and you sometimes don't remember anything.
It could also be like those dreams where someone is saying something, and as you wake up the words morph into what is really being said.
Hey cool, I get where your going, But what I'm saying is that A perception check in the middle of melee combat on someone across a room, is not just "distracted" and lip reading in said combat zone is going to be harder just than noticing that there is a guy over there talking and pointing. in melee a lot of people are pointing and more than a few are being vocal, picking one in particular out is going to be hard unless you had your eye on him before this all began, which usually isn't the case in full frontal dungeon assaults. there is a reason the spell caster hangs back and lets the meat shield go in first. they don't start looking for you unless A) you just let off a blast spell B) your battlefield control just borked them or C) they are expecting you.
I'm thinking of penalty's like being stealthy while running (-20) are more in line. Spell craft is like any other crafting check. meant to be done while you can put your attention on the subject and look it over and notice the details and reference your memory and such.
being in combat doesn't allow any of that stuff to happen very easily.
I'm on your side here BTW, I'm basically saying if every bady you go up against has spell craft going on to thwart your caster, then I could see that being a problem if he's doing the David Copperfield bit in the spotlight. But in combat with your summoned pit fiend trying to eat his face, your barbarian buddy on his right and your halfling rogue looking to play "sucking chest wounds r us" on his backside, he ain't got time to be spellchecking you without taking some hits, or missing some details. maybe if he goes ethereal and lets everyone wave their hands through him while he's looking you over like a fat boy at a bakery window,but otherwise he better be TCOB with the defense.
At the least I'd stack those modifiers above up instead of only using one.
or maybe just call him invisible until you make a perception check to spot him through the chaos, then apply modifiers above that stack. remember the moonwalking bear was pretty much invisible to most people.
Adventurer's aren't "most people." They are a cut above the rest and likely see the bear far more often.
I don't want the rules to make it harder to identify cast spells, I just want an option for people to truly conceal spellcasting (preferably via silent and still spell).
As written, the rules are pretty clear in that Spellcraft is often used as a reactionary skill, just like Perception. As such, it doesn't require any more focus than Perception does. The things you propose are largely house rules, house rules that can hurt spellcasters just as much as it can help them.
|
|
As written, the rules are pretty clear in that Spellcraft is often used as a reactionary skill, just like Perception. As such, it doesn't require any more focus than Perception does.
Well, your calling it clearly written, but so am I. the rules say
"..., but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, ..."
If your in melee you have at least one (maybe more depending on the melee and the range) body giving partial cover, you have the range modifiers, and the conditions are downright bloody awful. just saying.
this is reminding me of those threads where DMs complain about archers killing the Mobs too effectively. you know the same threads that say, in effect, "Stop treating the battle like it's in a racket-ball court, throw some terrain modifiers, and some range and take into account the general environment."
that's really all i'm doing here. Spell check need not be your bane if your using all the rules. You seem to like using the rules, so I thought I was helping.
now if your a caster afraid this is getting used against you, hopefully your out back of the melee so it's not as bad if your watching from outside the fishbowl. but as THAT caster, if the caster on the enemy side starts counterspelling me like mad because of those spellcraft checks, then I've done my job wrong. battlefield control means I should have some blind casters on the other side, you don't want the other artillery knowing where to shell to take out YOUR artillery.
Expeditious Retreat: even though the 30' extra move speed could definitely help your character retreat, the spell doesn't actually force the character to retreat at all.
Perception Modifiers; DC Modifier
Distance to the source, object, or creature; +1/10 feet
Through a closed door; +5
Through a wall; +10/foot of thickness
Unfavorable conditions; +2
Terrible conditions ;+5
Creature making the check is distracted; +5
Creature making the check is asleep; +10
Creature or object is invisible; +20Hey cool, I get where your going, But what I'm saying is that A perception check in the middle of melee combat on someone across a room, is not just "distracted" and lip reading in said combat zone is going to be harder just than noticing that there is a guy over there talking and pointing. in melee a lot of people are pointing and more than a few are being vocal, picking one in particular out is going to be hard unless you had your eye on him before this all began, which usually isn't the case in full frontal dungeon assaults. there is a reason the spell caster hangs back and lets the meat shield go in first. they don't start looking for you unless A) you just let off a blast spell B) your battlefield control just borked them or C) they are expecting you.
I'm thinking of penalty's like being stealthy while running (-20) are more in line. Spell craft is like any other crafting check. meant to be done while you can put your attention on the subject and look it over and notice the details and reference your memory and such.
being in combat doesn't allow any of that stuff to happen very easily.
I'm on your side here BTW, I'm basically saying if every bady you go up against has spell craft going on to thwart your caster, then I could see that being a problem if he's doing the David Copperfield bit in the spotlight. But in combat with your summoned pit fiend trying to eat his face, your barbarian buddy on his right and your halfling rogue looking to play "sucking chest wounds r us" on his backside, he ain't got time to be spellchecking you without taking some hits, or missing some details. maybe if he goes ethereal and lets everyone wave their hands through him while he's looking you over like a fat boy at a bakery window,but otherwise he better be TCOB with the defense.
At the least I'd stack those modifiers above up instead of only using one.
or maybe just call him invisible until you make a perception check to spot him through the chaos, then apply modifiers above that stack. remember the moonwalking bear was pretty much invisible to most people.
ok, lets do some math.
1) caster is 30 feet away, well within short range and not unreasonable in most fights. that's +3 dc/-3 penalty, whichever way you prefer to look at it.2) you're in a battle. that makes you distracted for another +/-5
3) A battlefield, from clashing armies to a skirmish, is full of noise and movement to hide exactly what's going on with the caster. i'd say that counts for terrible conditions and another +/-5
so that makes most fights at least +/-11, with this one hanging in for +/-13 and larger battles making it even harder.
as an option for the DMs out there, if you've got enough people between caster and observer then you could almost consider them a wall of people, for let's call it +/-10 per four people in the way. it's not raw per say, but it makes sense and is far from unreasonable.
in conclusion it's not easy to spot what someone's casting in a basic skirmish, let alone a full scale battle. i'm not spellcraft as an 'i win' button against illusions in battle, as with that much noise and confusion you'll have to be very good or very lucky to work out exactly what's being cast by whom.
The things you propose are largely house rules, house rules that can hurt spellcasters just as much as it can help them.
is it really house rules? as it is you can get a very high spellcraft on an int caster without even trying, even at low levels. i'm hypothisising that the built-in penalties when using spellcraft in a fight are intentional, simply to stop deceptive spells and the like being completely useless in battlefield conditions. that said i'd love to have some way of hiding my spellcasting for subtle/manipulative spells, though some already have it built in (suggestion is vocal only, giving you effectively a jedi mind trick without the handwave. i'm fairly sure there are others, but i'm not going to look through and find them right now). of course, out of combat you can always cast ventriliquism, then coordinate with the party rogue to make it look like he's the group caster and not you. that'll keep whoever's watching your group on their toes!