Stealthy casting. Vocal and Somatic spell components definition.


Rules Questions


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Can I be in any way subtle when casting or do you have to go all out with movement and vocals for each spell? (Wizard and cleric schools must have some spectacular cheerleader competitions if that is the case)

Can a vocal component be delivered like a regular spoken sentence? If I have the spells vocal component as part as a password or other sentence can I then cast a spell without anyone noticing the vocal part?
Can I use surrounding sounds to mask vocal components, can I sit in a bar full of loud people and cast on someone the other side of the room without them noticing me?
Is it possible to hide somatic components? If possible in what ways? Up your sleeves, behind your cloak, as part of some other movement such as a dance etc?

Still and Silent spells are still the best ways for the job but there has to be some more mundane ways to do it even if they are not as surefire.
Sleight of hands to hide somatic components?
Can I mumble my magic words or just speak very softly?
Can I whisper the vocal components into a targets ear?

Also on a somewhat unrelated note, what skill would be used to sound like someone else, be it a specific person or just not yourself?

Sczarni

There are creative ways to accomplish what you're looking for, I'm sure. As for masking the verbal component as part of a sentence or other communication, that may prove difficult. You aren't speaking regular common when casting. As I understand it arcane spells have their own dialect. Having said that, I see no problem whatsoever allowing surrounding sounds to mask your verbal components. There would be perception checks to hear you, of course, but at a -10 for the surrounding noise and the fact nobody is really paying attention to you.

As for hiding somatic components, I would allow a sleight of hand check, but would also impart an arcane spell failure % as if you were wearing armor. Only halfway performing the gestures necessary for a spell would put the spell at risk of failure.

Your idea of incorporating them into a dance is actually a really good idea. Take a level or two of bard, skills in perform(dance) and perform(sing) and you could make a pretty interesting character. Fellow casters would be allowed a spellcraft check to catch onto your ploy since the language and movements are familiar to them, but at a -5 maybe because they are distracted. The bluff skill would be invaluable as well in that situation I would imagine.

As for sounding like someone else, I would say bluff. If the person you're trying to fool can see you, a disguise check would go a long way to help as well.

Hope this helps!

[Edit] I can't type this early in the morning. :P


Verbal Components must be made in a strong voice. So you cannot wisper out the spell. Thus even if invisible you are giving out the square you stand in when you can a spell with a verbal component.
- "A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice."

Somatic components require precise hand gestures. There are no rules regarding this but I would say that once again the answer is that you can not hide it. These gestures are recognizable by other wizards using a spellcraft check and having a way to hide them would also bypass this.
- "A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component."

Material components are used in the spell and annihilated in the process of casting. Kind of hard to hide an object being disintegrated in front of you.
- "A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process."

TLDR: No. That's why we have the feats that let us hide spellcasting.

P.S. This is a purely rules answer. GMs are able to let stuff slide / happen differently.


EDIT: Lab_Rat is correct in his rulings, so I deleted the parts of my answer that just copy him.

Sereinái wrote:
Can a vocal component be delivered like a regular spoken sentence? If I have the spells vocal component as part as a password or other sentence can I then cast a spell without anyone noticing the vocal part?....

This seems like a definite "no." Verbal components are described as incantations and thus would sound out of place in most speech. Secondly, the feat Spellsong allows a bard to mix a spell in with his performances by making checks and losing a round of Bardic Performance. If it takes a feat, you cannot do it for free. This also answers the later question about dance I feel.

Sereinái wrote:
Can I use surrounding sounds to mask vocal components, can I sit in a bar full of loud people and cast on someone the other side of the room without them noticing me?

Well now this one could be yes. If a person cannot hear you or see your hands, the chance of them recognizing your casting is slim. There are already rules for hearing in a crowded place, so this would be a difficult perception check. To go unnoticed visually, I would probably use a stealth check with some bonuses to the caster.

Sereinái wrote:
Is it possible to hide somatic components? If possible in what ways?

I have allowed it as Sleight of Hand versus either Spellcraft or Perception as a house rule. Not saying this RAW at all. I have seen other good rulings, but that is just the way I do it for simplicity.

Sereinái wrote:
...what skill would be used to sound like someone else, be it a specific person or just not yourself?

I can't say there is a clear winner here, but I would go Linguistics in a pinch. Bluff is for lying not sounding different and Disguise is visual not audible. If a GM wanted to rule Bluff, I would not argue it. Anyway, all this is just my two copper.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Bards can hide the casting of a spell in a Performance with the Spellsong feat.

Otherwise, you have to pull out v3.5 material for the skill trick. I think it was "concealed casting" but without access to my old books here at work I can't be sure.

Edit: Ninja'd !

Edit2:
Found it. It is called "Conceal Spellcasting", in Complete Scoundrel page 85. Prerequisites are concentration 1 rank, sleight of hand 5 ranks, spellcraft 1 rank. As a skill trick, it cost you two skill points.

"You can keep viewers from realizing that you are casting a spell by making an Opposed Sleight of Hand vs. Spot check. Opponents who fail the check do not gain an Attack of Opportunity or attempt to Counter your spell."

Note that as a skill trick, it was only usable once per encounter. If you intend to convert it, find the conversion notes about how skill ranks changed from v3.5 to Pathfinder.

Skill Tricks can be found in this online document starting on page 84.


I'm sure both points have been brought up sometime before but can't "strong voice" be taken to mean strong as in commanding or determined? I.E. "You WILL fall flat on the floor" rather than simply being loud?

If I shield my somatic casting hand from sight with a cloak I'd make it harder to see what I was casting but everyone, magic user or no, would see that I was up to something. As you only need one, or at least one, hand wouldn't that be sort of a trade off? There are only a few instances where one could get away doing it and if I tried doing so in combat I might be able to hold a weapon but not threaten anything with it (wouldn't be readied).

I'm looking for loopholes a little but I think there should be some way to be a stealthy wizard, sorcerer or witch before level 5. Silent and Still are strong and guaranteed to work and would remain the only way to cast stealthily in a lot of situations. I'm more interested in ways to cast undetected in situations where focus isn't on you such as large crowds or hiding places.

Is it possible to cast a spell and hold onto it for any amount of time? Say casting a Sleep spell and then sneak around a corner or two and release it on a guard. It would take at least some form of Concentration check I would bet but is it possible, as it would be a way to work around not being able to cast secretly on the spot


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

The only spells you can "Hold" are touch spells. Sleep does not qualify.

Sczarni

Quote:
can't "strong voice" be taken to mean strong as in commanding or determined? I.E. "You WILL fall flat on the floor" rather than simply being loud?

This would be open to interpretation by your GM I think. Typically, no. In your example I would say your will is strong, or your resolve is strong, but your voice would still be meek and subtle. That would be a good point for your GM to make a call on though. If he/she will allow it then you have the potential for a very interesting character.

Quote:
If I shield my somatic casting hand from sight with a cloak I'd make it harder to see what I was casting

Yes it would, but it would also hamper your movements. The trick here is that there is no defined movement, per the rules, for different spells. Burning hands, for example, just says fire shoots from your fingertips. In 3.5 I seem to remember it specifically saying you held both hands out, fingers spread, tips of your thumbs touching, and your fingers pointing at your desired target area and flames burst forth. Pathfinder says nothing of the sort and is therefore open to liberal interpretation.


Sereinái, I would agree that strong doesn't have to mean loud, but a whisper cannot by any definition be considered a "strong voice." You need to at least speak in a normal tone.

As I said earlier, you cannot do something for free if a feat exists to allow you to do it. Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Spellsong are the feats in this situation. I support the use of house rules here, but the RAW is not going to help you be the stealthy caster you want to be. If you want to be stealty, you probably shouldn't be playing a primary caster. You need to be good at the actual Stealth skill. Talk to your GM and work out how they want to play this. I don't think we can help you.


Depending on what language your DM says verbal components are in, you could disguise rather than hide them by trying to pass it off as speaking a foreign language, probably with a bluff check.

I always imagine somatic components as looking like tai-chi, waving your arms around, so I think that it would be pretty hard to hide that. If your DM thinks that it is just twitching your hand around though, you could probably get away with a sleight of hand check to keep that out of sight.


I'm bumping this back up as it's related to my silent image question.

I'm assuming this strong voice is coming from the core RB: to which it says:

"To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice."

Note that it says you must be able to, not that you must.

What I inferred from this is, you can't be in a position where speaking strongly is inhibited by 'something', or in other words you can't use verbal components if for any reason you can't speak regularly. This is further encouraged by the next line:

"A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell)"

I'm pretty sure my GM takes it as you can't whisper it either, but I'm still confused as to why not. If the spell -needs- to be heard then it makes perfect sense, such as any bardic performance or mind-influencing effect. But if I'm casting silent image, I fail to see where me whispering would affect my ability to create an image.

I'd like pointers though. This influences how I play my character so :\.

As an example, when I cast Detect Magic, my GM has it as me pretty much openly speaking the chant and waving my arms. This was around two guards, so to get around it the players stood in front of me and I faced away. But, in my mind my character would turn his back (sans friends) and just sort of whisper it so that he can see the auras, in a whisper so as not to draw too much attention (make it look like I'm just observing what it is i'm looking at.


KHShadowrunner wrote:

"To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice."

Note that it says you must be able to, not that you must.

Yeah, but good luck getting that one past your GM. You're better off checking the Perception penalties, and create some distance and background noise.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure my GM takes it as you can't whisper it either, but I'm still confused as to why not.

Because, as you pointed out, you have to be able to speak in a strong voice. And you can't do that while whispering. ;)

Quote:
If the spell -needs- to be heard then it makes perfect sense, such as any bardic performance or mind-influencing effect. But if I'm casting silent image, I fail to see where me whispering would affect my ability to create an image.

You're not meeting one of the requirements for casting the spell (being able to speak in a strong voice), and so the spell fails. It's potentially one of the most powerful 1st level spells as it is - you can't expect miracles from it.

There are ways to get around being obvious in your spellcasting, but you'll have to be more creative. With regards to sound, you can use the Ventriloquism spell and make your incantation seem to come from another room. Or just have allies create a big ruckus. Or pretend to cast spells for half an hour, and then sneak a real one in. The Zone of Silence spell is perfect for casting "on the sly". Or just use metamagic.


If you're an Oracle, you may choose the Deaf curse which causes you to cast spells as if modified by the Silent Spell ability. This does apply to spellcasting from all classes.

You may take a Rod of Metamagic Silence or Still.

You may take Vanish, a 1st level spell, which can be used much earlier and more often than 2nd level spells.

You can deny your target line of sight to you, or the ability to hear through any variety of means. You can blind him -- you can deafen him -- you can snuff the light sources in the area -- you can drop a Darkness -- you can arrange to have an area of Silence walk by when you cast your spell. You can probably sweettalk your DM into letting you cast your spell when he's not looking if he's just sitting there staring at his many mugs of ale and then you just have to deal with the sound.

Maybe the Verbal component of your spell can't be hidden, but that doesn't mean it can't be overshadowed. Cast your spell when a parade is going by and he may be unable to pick out the sound over the din of your surroundings.

You can walk in with a Touch spell charge on your hand and subtly discharge it. Hell, I seem to recall that a familiar may be able to discharge Touch spells that you cast too -- such as a cat rubbing on somebody's leg. Though maybe that has changed.

Figure out what you can do using spells that already only require a Somatic or Verbal component. If you have Eschew Materials, good for you -- it should be that much easier for you.

Outside of that, yes, if you want something easy then the game is Silent spells and Improved Invisibility.

I'm not going to say it's easy, but it's not impossible either, especially because you're trying every trick in the book to attack a creature without them knowing they're being attacked or without knowing that it's you attacking them. I believe that the game designers made casting spells about as obvious as attacking somebody with a sword for good reason, and even then they still left you methods to explore.

But no, this is not really a path you can pursue without any investment or risk.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Metamagic is the answer here.

It may not be the answer some want to hear, but it is the answer.

Being able to cast spells on the sly is an investment.

It could be feats, items, or class features, but it's not something finagle your way out of.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Metamagic is the answer here.

It may not be the answer some want to hear, but it is the answer.

Being able to cast spells on the sly is an investment.

It could be feats, items, or class features, but it's not something finagle your way out of.

I am unclear, as aside from the a fore mentioned bardic feat, which I admit I am unfamiliar with, I was under the impression that even silent, still and eschewed a spell still granted a spell craft check to recognize it.

Spellcraft wrote:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.

Unless this sentence is taken to mean that a silent still and eschewed spell cannot be "Clearly seen" or is an "Other Factor", I do not see anywhere in either spellcraft or the feats where a player or NPC would be denied a spellcraft check due to Silent, Still, or eschewed spells.

If anyone could explain this to me I would be grateful, as I find the concept of a stealthy magic-user fun and flavorful, however I do not see how it is possible by the RAW.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Bluff to create a diversion seems fitting. With combination of various feats, etc.


Covent wrote:
I do not see anywhere in either spellcraft or the feats where a player or NPC would be denied a spellcraft check due to Silent, Still, or eschewed spells.

That's 'cause the metamagic doesn't directly prevent the spellcraft check. They simply negate the need to create anything visible or audible when casting. The audience is denied their spellcraft check because they never knew a spell was being cast to begin with - unless the spell itself has a perceivable effect of course.


VRMH wrote:
Covent wrote:
I do not see anywhere in either spellcraft or the feats where a player or NPC would be denied a spellcraft check due to Silent, Still, or eschewed spells.
That's 'cause the metamagic doesn't directly prevent the spellcraft check. They simply negate the need to create anything visible or audible when casting. The audience is denied their spellcraft check because they never knew a spell was being cast to begin with - unless the spell itself has a perceivable effect of course.

Unfortunately as quoted above spellcraft does not require you to see gestures or hear sounds. It further does not judge based on effects.

It clearly states that you must be able to see a spell as it is being cast.

This means the order of events works as follows.

NPC: *Begins casting a spell*

Player: *Is within clear sight of the NPC* "I want a spellcraft check" *Rolls and Succeds*

GM: The spell is FireBall

This order of events does not change because the NPC uses Still, Silent, and eschewed spells.

If the player would be close enough to see the spell being cast clearly, there is still a spell being cast and it is still clearly within sight range.

Otherwise taking still, silent and eschew would result in spells that could not be counter spelled.

In short the visible and audible components are not what spellcraft is identifying, it is the action of spell-casting itself which the three metamagic feats in question do not modify, only the visible audible and physical components of such.


One example where my Sorceress was able to hide her spellcasting:

We the PCs were playing on stage, and my Sorceress was playing a Wizard. So, when she needed to cast a spell, my GM allowed me to use Bluff to make it seem as if it belonged to the play.

Apart from exceptional situations like that one, yeah, maybe the Oracle curse Deaf is your way to go (guess why my Sorceress dipped into Oracle levels). Being able to cast spells silently without spell level penalty is awesome, especially if you're good at sneaking around too (or cast Vanish). Now I can summon elementals whithout anyone noticing (first Vanish, then the summon spell(s)).

Best,
your crazy gnome from next door


Personally, I would consider spellcasting on the sly to fall into a Bluff or Stealth Check against other's Sense Motive or Perception.

As for how loudly you need to speak while casting, I think that ruling is more about the 'you can't be gagged' part, and less about the 'strong voice' part. I would say it really doesn't need to go above regular talking volume, as long as you aren't otherwise restricted. It might be obvious you're casting a spell if someone hears you, but I don't think it's going to give away your position if you're invisible, for example.

Obviously, that may just be my interpretation. I picture casting a spell more like a person saying a couple words (not terribly loudly, like they could be talking to themselves) and making a few gestures with their hands (or a hand, since you really only need one as far as I know). Edit: Also, I mean that for the simple standard action spells. Spending 6 full seconds talking in order to summon elementals might indeed be more noticeable.

As long as you aren't restrained from doing either of those, you should be good, but it could still be noticeable to others, hence why I think a Bluff or Stealth would be suitable to hide what you're doing. Again though, maybe that's just my interpretation.


Covent wrote:

Unfortunately as quoted above spellcraft does not require you to see gestures or hear sounds. It further does not judge based on effects.

It clearly states that you must be able to see a spell as it is being cast.

This means the order of events works as follows.

NPC: *Begins casting a spell*

And there the problem starts. The fact that this NPC casts a spell is meta-information. Nobody knows a spell is being cast.
Quote:

Player: *Is within clear sight of the NPC* "I want a spellcraft check" *Rolls and Succeds*

GM: The spell is FireBall

This order of events does not change because the NPC uses Still, Silent, and eschewed spells.

Correct. The order of events simply never materialises. You don't get Spellcraft checks against every sentient creature in sight every six seconds, just 'cause one of them might be casting a spell.

Quote:
If the player would be close enough to see the spell being cast clearly, there is still a spell being cast and it is still clearly within sight range.

No degree of closeness is "close enough" when there is nothing to be seen.

Quote:
Otherwise taking still, silent and eschew would result in spells that could not be counter spelled.

That's a logical conclusion, yes. Three feats and two spell levels are a heavy investment, which had better pay off.

Quote:
In short the visible and audible components are not what spellcraft is identifying, it is the action of spell-casting itself which the three metamagic feats in question do not modify, only the visible audible and physical components of such.

What action then, is the action of spell-casting itself? It's invisible, inaudible and requires no discernible activity, which doesn't leave much "action".


Jason Bulmahn talks about this here.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there Everybody,

The rules here are certainly not clear, because they generally assume that the act of casting a spell has some noticeable element. Notice I did not say component, because I think the rules are silent on parts of spellcasting that are codified components versus those that occur without any sort of codification, such as the wiggle of a finger, change in breathing and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.

Back to the topic at hand, since the rules are silent here, I think it is well within the GMs purview to impose a penalty to the Spellcraft check to identify a spell without components (V, S, M). Since there is no real increase for spells with just one, I would guess that this penalty is not very large, perhaps only as much as -4.

This is, of course, up to your GM to adjudicate.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Edit: I should also note that I also agree with James, that a strict reading of the rules says you can make the check, without penalty, regardless of the spell's components.

Sczarni

You beat me to it! I was just looking for that. Damn you Cheapy. :)

On a related note, Spell-like abilities have no verbal, somatic, or material components and require no focus, yet in their description it clearly states they can be countered just like a regular spell which requires a spellcraft check to identify the effect so it can be countered. With that in mind there is no reason you cannot use spellcraft to identify a silent and still spell cast by a mage with eschew materials, albeit at a penalty as was stated above.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Exactly what happens is up to the GM, but in most of my games SOMEthing happens when you cast most spells. It can vary from caster to caster. In one case arcane runes might swirl around, in others a small shower of sparkles might rain from a gesturing wand. Maybe the caster's eyes roll back in her head while she looks constipated. All of those things can still happen when the spell is silent, stilled AND eschewed.


I guess the main reason is that the impression that I get from the GM is that this particular campaign (homebrew) frowns greatly on magic. It's not viewed in the greatest light, even if there is a court mage. So my character is trying to keep it unnoticed.

Taking it into the actual Pathfinder game is just curiousity. Seems that the majority rules that you have to make it audible, even if it's not supposed to affect it.

I'll just try to wrap it up in my songs somehow and pretend i'm singing all the time. And thus - why people find bards so annoying. It's secretly so they can cast spells all day.


KHShadowrunner wrote:
this particular campaign (homebrew) frowns greatly on magic

All magic, or just Arcane magic?


Sereinái wrote:

Can I be in any way subtle when casting or do you have to go all out with movement and vocals for each spell? (Wizard and cleric schools must have some spectacular cheerleader competitions if that is the case)

Can a vocal component be delivered like a regular spoken sentence? If I have the spells vocal component as part as a password or other sentence can I then cast a spell without anyone noticing the vocal part?
Can I use surrounding sounds to mask vocal components, can I sit in a bar full of loud people and cast on someone the other side of the room without them noticing me?
Is it possible to hide somatic components? If possible in what ways? Up your sleeves, behind your cloak, as part of some other movement such as a dance etc?

Still and Silent spells are still the best ways for the job but there has to be some more mundane ways to do it even if they are not as surefire.
Sleight of hands to hide somatic components?
Can I mumble my magic words or just speak very softly?
Can I whisper the vocal components into a targets ear?

Also on a somewhat unrelated note, what skill would be used to sound like someone else, be it a specific person or just not yourself?

If you are using any v3.5 books, I suggest you look at Complete Adventurer. One feat in particular is good for anybody with Bardic Music, namely Disguise Spell (pg. 108). In short, when you are doing a performance, you make an extra Perform check that's opposed by other people's Spot checks for them to even notice that you are casting a spell during your performance. Even if they succeed on the spot check, they cannot use Spellcraft to identify what spell you're casting.

There's an additional feat, Subsonics, on pg 112 of the same book, that could work nicely in combination with Disguise Spell. To quote: "You can produce music or poetics so subtly that opponents do not notice it, yet your allies still gain all the usual benefits from your bardic music. Similarly, you can affect opponents within range with your music, but unless they can see you performing or have some other means of discovering it, they cannot determine the source of the effect."

In short, you have a performance so subtle that opponents don't notice it, which you then work your spell into, which opponents must then make a Spot check to tell that you are casting, but they can only do this if they can tell that you are performing. If you have a faceplate or a mask over your face, or maybe even a heavy veil, your opponents probably won't know that you're singing or storytelling.

To sound like somebody else, you'd probably want the Perform (Acting) skill. Bluff might work if you have some sort of magic disguising you. DMs choice there, really, but acting should always work.

Let me know if this is of any help.


Once you open up v3.5, Cityscape contains a metamagic feat for undetected~ spellcasting. Of course, if you're firing rays then it's still pretty clear that you're somehow involved.

Still, I don't terribly like mixing 3.5 in my Pathfinder anymore.

Sczarni

Sorry for necro, but what does this mean for psychic spellcasting? Seeing as they have no verbal or somatic components, would opponents know you're casting at all?


If they observe you, most likely. They can still make spellcraft checks (to identify the spell being cast) even if it's a psychic spell.

Personally, I'd grant those psychic spells an additional modifier to the DC to identify, unless the character checking is a psychic user as well. but YMMD.

Sczarni

So an invisibility spell would make opponents completely unaware of your spellcasting!

Sneak into room invisible > cast dominate monster > ?? > profit!


Silent spell and Still spell are for this.

If you want to be stealthy, take the feats.

Combine that with invisibility, and you have concealed casting.

Of course, if you cast an offensive spell, invisibility drops, so improved invisibility is what you want.

There is another thread about spells and whether or not they have visual components, it seems that one of the game designers has suggested that the difficulty to identify a spell should increase in increments of +4 per missing component, with some spells being unidentifiable under certain circumstances.

So, example:

Magic Missile, with only Verbal and Somatic components, would be at a +4 DC to identify.

If it was stilled AND silenced, the GM could simply state that although you knew they were casting a spell (look of concentration, provoking AoO and so on), there simply wasn't enough info to identify WHICH spell was being cast.

These are rules, just rules suggestions from one of the game designers.

I'm adopting it for my game though. :D


alexd1976 wrote:

Silent spell and Still spell are for this.

....

I think you missed, that Carla and myself talked about psychic spells right now. Those never have V or S components.

Carla the Profane wrote:

So an invisibility spell would make opponents completely unaware of your spellcasting!

Sneak into room invisible > cast dominate monster > ?? > profit!

Yeah, an invisible psychic spellcaster has a good time. Unless he get's in a fear-aura and tries casting an E-component spell.

Or wants to move and cast a T-component spell.


DM Sothal wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Silent spell and Still spell are for this.

....

I think you missed, that Carla and myself talked about psychic spells right now. Those never have V or S components.

Carla the Profane wrote:

So an invisibility spell would make opponents completely unaware of your spellcasting!

Sneak into room invisible > cast dominate monster > ?? > profit!

Yeah, an invisible psychic spellcaster has a good time. Unless he get's in a fear-aura and tries casting an E-component spell.

Or wants to move and cast a T-component spell.

What I wrote applies equally to what you are talking about.


You mean Intuitive Spell and Logical Spell then?


DM Sothal wrote:
You mean Intuitive Spell and Logical Spell then?

Sure.

It's all house rules though, so make of it what you will.


I have to disagree here.

Psychic spells never have V or S components. The description for E and T components never mentions 'a strong voice' (V) or gestures (S). E and T components do have perceivable indications, the caster has to concentrate, and likely make the casting of a psychic spell visible if the caster is visible.

An invisible psychic caster would not need intuitive spell as much as an invisible arcane/divine caster would need silent spell (to counteract the strong voice).


Ok. So I am pretty sure that dragons and elves and gnomes didn't all come together to decide what the arcane words will be for their spells. With that in mind, i think it is possible using another arcane language to cast a spell.

For each component of a spell you are trying to alter I would increase the multiplier by 1 for a concentration check. The base dc is 20+?×spell level. If you want a bonus on this check

If you chose to use another language, I would allow you to make a linguistics check to confer a +2 bonus. DC 20+2×spell level

If you want to hide hand movement, then a sleight of hands check, DC 20 +2×spell level to confer a+2bonus to the concentration check.

So if you're changing both verbal and somatic components, the dc will be a 20+3×spell level concentration check. For only one, it would just be 20+2×spell level.


Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Ok. So I am pretty sure that dragons and elves and gnomes didn't all come together to decide what the arcane words will be for their spells. With that in mind, i think it is possible using another arcane language to cast a spell.

For each component of a spell you are trying to alter I would increase the multiplier by 1 for a concentration check. The base dc is 20+?×spell level. If you want a bonus on this check

If you chose to use another language, I would allow you to make a linguistics check to confer a +2 bonus. DC 20+2×spell level

If you want to hide hand movement, then a sleight of hands check, DC 20 +2×spell level to confer a+2bonus to the concentration check.

So if you're changing both verbal and somatic components, the dc will be a 20+3×spell level concentration check. For only one, it would just be 20+2×spell level.

Here I was thinking that NO language was used for the spells, that the spells themselves had their own language of sorts.

that's how one skill can identify any spell being cast, regardless of the casters language, or whether it is divine or arcane.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Corren28 wrote:
As I understand it arcane spells have their own dialect.

just to be clear this seems untrue at least based on this one feat

Ancient Draconic wrote:

Prerequisite(s): Arcane caster level 5th, speaks Draconic.

Benefit(s): You gain a +1 bonus on caster level checks to overcome spell resistance when casting arcane spells that have a verbal component. If you speak Draconic when casting an arcane language-dependent spell, all intelligent creatures with a language can understand your words.

it seems imply you can speak spells with a verbal component in draconic to gain a bonus to the strength of a spell.

if people want i can bring up more evidense that shows components aren't neccassary to cast spells and that pathfinder seems to imply you simply need to know what you're doing for the spell to function, components just make spell easier(and thus do not define a spell).


alexd1976 wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Ok. So I am pretty sure that dragons and elves and gnomes didn't all come together to decide what the arcane words will be for their spells. With that in mind, i think it is possible using another arcane language to cast a spell.

For each component of a spell you are trying to alter I would increase the multiplier by 1 for a concentration check. The base dc is 20+?×spell level. If you want a bonus on this check

If you chose to use another language, I would allow you to make a linguistics check to confer a +2 bonus. DC 20+2×spell level

If you want to hide hand movement, then a sleight of hands check, DC 20 +2×spell level to confer a+2bonus to the concentration check.

So if you're changing both verbal and somatic components, the dc will be a 20+3×spell level concentration check. For only one, it would just be 20+2×spell level.

Here I was thinking that NO language was used for the spells, that the spells themselves had their own language of sorts.

that's how one skill can identify any spell being cast, regardless of the casters language, or whether it is divine or arcane.

Counter spelling isn't any more difficult for a still spell or silent spell or eschew materials spell.

Sczarni

So the consensus seems to be that psychic spells are only identifyable (and therefore recognizeable as being a spell) when having line of sight. This opens up alot of options for stealhy spellcasting!


Bandw2 wrote:
Corren28 wrote:
As I understand it arcane spells have their own dialect.

just to be clear this seems untrue at least based on this one feat

Ancient Draconic wrote:

Prerequisite(s): Arcane caster level 5th, speaks Draconic.

Benefit(s): You gain a +1 bonus on caster level checks to overcome spell resistance when casting arcane spells that have a verbal component. If you speak Draconic when casting an arcane language-dependent spell, all intelligent creatures with a language can understand your words.

it seems imply you can speak spells with a verbal component in draconic to gain a bonus to the strength of a spell.

if people want i can bring up more evidense that shows components aren't neccassary to cast spells and that pathfinder seems to imply you simply need to know what you're doing for the spell to function, components just make spell easier(and thus do not define a spell).

Which makes me wonder just HOW you can identify spells if you break it down to only verbal, say, teleport... and you don't speak the casters language?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Corren28 wrote:
As I understand it arcane spells have their own dialect.

just to be clear this seems untrue at least based on this one feat

Ancient Draconic wrote:

Prerequisite(s): Arcane caster level 5th, speaks Draconic.

Benefit(s): You gain a +1 bonus on caster level checks to overcome spell resistance when casting arcane spells that have a verbal component. If you speak Draconic when casting an arcane language-dependent spell, all intelligent creatures with a language can understand your words.

it seems imply you can speak spells with a verbal component in draconic to gain a bonus to the strength of a spell.

if people want i can bring up more evidense that shows components aren't neccassary to cast spells and that pathfinder seems to imply you simply need to know what you're doing for the spell to function, components just make spell easier(and thus do not define a spell).

Which makes me wonder just HOW you can identify spells if you break it down to only verbal, say, teleport... and you don't speak the casters language?

because the verbal and somatic components seem to be personal, when applying metamagic to a spell, you're doing just that you're casting THE SAME SPELL in a different way. This seems to imply that they can be ignored so long as you're skilled enough and then have the available slot. slots aren't defined like earlier editions, no longer do they represent a space in your mind where the spell is written.

It seems that for a wizard at least the ability to cast the spell comes from an understanding of the spell as it's written in complicated mathematical formula, you can expend higher slots to cast the spell without somatic or verbal components. Along with the evidence that verbal can be in a spoken normal language as well as other various languages(as my feat seems to suggest that you were using some other verbal components other than draconic), it seems magic is very personal in how it is cast, changing from user to user, thusly to be able to identify the magic there has to be some tell from the magic itself.


I concur bandw2

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealthy casting. Vocal and Somatic spell components definition. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.