Hi folks,
Let`s say Bob the sorcerer is having a conversation with Bobbette the bandit. Bob has the silent spell and still spell metamagic feats. Would Bobette notice that bob is casting a spell if he stills & silences one of his spells mid-conversation?
The way i see it, Bob would only be pausing for half a round to concentrate...i`ve got many friends who space out longer than this during a conversation :) What do you guys think? Anything official on this?
Would bluff check be in order? A sense motive check for the opposed party?
On another note, is there any rules dictating stealthy spellcasting without those feats?
There's a feat (Spellsong) that lets a bard hide spellcasting withing a performance, but I don't think that'd work for a sorceror.
There was an old v3.5 skill trick that would work, if you allow v3.5 material.
EDIT: The skill trick is "Conceal Spellcasting" from Complete Scoundrel. It only works once per encounter, but it doesn't increase the effective spell level.
There's also Invisible Spell(Cityscape page 61), but my Cityscape isn't handy so I can't really discuss it at the moment.
Remember, always, be careful what you wish you can do, because the bad guys will be able to do the same back.
I would say no, a well timed 3 second pause wouldn't raise suspicion in my eyes. I think a bluff (or even diplomacy to simulate a mastery of conversation, knowing when to pause and such?) vs sense motive is the right way to go, although if they bandit has no reason to suspect the sorcerer, I would make it against a passive sense motive (sense motive +10) rather then having the bandit roll. Could be just me though.
It depends on if Bobette is the target of the spell. I would also take into account if Bobette has any ranks in spellcraft (unlikely, I suppose, for a bandit).
I'd come up with some sort of skill check to see if Bob gets away with it. But with still and silent spell, I'd make it a pretty high DC.
If he only had still spell and used a bluff check to hide casting a spell with a single word or something, I might give him a "subliminal spell" chance to make it even without it being silent.
Heck, with a high enough bluff score, he might pull off some spells without even bothering to still or silence it.
Heh, new metamagic feat: "subliminal spell: The caster is able to disguise his spellcasting while in normal speech just like 'Mr. Subliminal' in Saturday Night Live..."
Some official rules on this would be really nice, but I really think it's going to be up to GMs.
It really depends on if spells have visual effects in your game world. Personally, I prefer spells to be like the force in Star Wars: you only see what is absolutely necessary. If the jedi mind trick caused the jedi's eyes to glow and stuff, that guard would get REAL suspicious.
This had come up before. A silenced still spell is not hidden. How do people know they are casting? That is up to the GM to fluff out.
Remember, always, be careful what you wish you can do, because the bad guys will be able to do the same back.
Well i'm in charge of the bad guys so that won't be a problem :)
..awesome guys. Thanks. Since there doesn't seem to be any official ruling and third edition splats are out then the sense motive/bluff ruling seems to be the way to go.