There are no rules for hiding only a body part such as a hand. That would be up to GM Fiat however you may be able to hide it if you have eschew materials, still spell, and silent spell.
Also by the rules people see you if they have line of sight so hiding the casting is difficult to do by the rules. You as the GM can rule that way, but it won't be something that is an actual universal rule.
Also perception checks are free against active stimuli so they would not have to ready an action for it.
You also can't bluff to hide spellcasting by the rules.
PS: This assumes you have no special ability that allows you to hide your spell casting.
|
You're allowed to make spellcraft checks if you can perceive them casting a spell. That's pretty much if it has any component.
If they're casting a spell with a verbal or somatic component, it's a DC:5 perception check to notice while being distracted by combat so that's very unlikely to work.
If you use Silent Spell, you could cast from stealth or while invisible without being easily noticed. If the party is distracted, I'd probably allow a stealth check to hide the somatic component of a spell.
Spell-like abilities are really the way to go though. Since they don't have components there's nothing really to give you away. Since they normally provoke an AoO, that does mean that they require a certain amount of attention.
For casting any spell without components, I'd go with a DC 15 sense motive check to notice or a DC 20 if the caster casts defensively (i.e. doesn't focus all their attention on the spell).
Without specific feats and abilities casting a spell is noticable, even without somatic or verbal components because it still provokes and AoO.
I know there is a feat specifically for bards so that you can't notice their casting but can't remember the name of it.
There are other threads that have asked this same basic quesiton before, but I can't think of how it was worded to search for it. Perhaps someone else can chim in with this information I have forgotten.
Tl;dr - No, you can't really disguise or hide the spell casting of most casters. However, as the GM you can always change the rules to fit you and say that this NPC had a feat like the Bard feat to disguise their casting.
Edit: Seems like other beat me to the punch about the feat Spellsong.
This is what i get for opening up this tab and walking away to do something else and not refreshing the page.
Interesting facts:
Action: 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
You can't identify a spell being cast only by hearing it.
For your direct concern, metamagic rods are my answer. Cheap, 3/day, they will greatly help you.
Ho, and another thing: In the ACG, there is an alchemical painting you can use to prepare a spell as if it was a silent spell.
I don't have it next to me, but you should try to check this out.
Verbal can be in any language. Make her cast them in twin-speak, a language only her and her twin sister understand. Act like she is praying.
Somatic (S)
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.Hand free... could be under a cloak.
Eschew Material + False Focus take care of material components and foci.
Woman keeling down cloak covering her praying in a strange language. Maybe a PC could notice movement under her cloak, but that could be just normal prayer movement like father-son-holyghost kinda thing.
Actually using silent and still spell don't stop spellcraft according to the devs so hiding your hand and using some strange language won't help either.
As much I as I disliked seeing that I don't know how I forgot about it.
PS: You can even spellcraft SLA's and they don't have any components.
HectorVivis: I like that it says "clearly see". To me that means that means any concealment or cover should prevent spellcraft checks.
Now this is interesting. :)
In my opinion, it doesn't mean that covers or concealment will stop your attempt to identify, it means that you must manage your perception check to see the caster.
If the caster isn't using stealth, it's 0 (DC to notice a visible creature) +2 (unfavorable condition) +1/10ft of distance.
If the caster is trying to get sneaky, change the 0 and the unfavorable condition for his stealth check.
But invisibility is probably one of the greatest counter to a counter-spell specialist, outside from a greataxe through his brain.
|
In my opinion, it doesn't mean that covers or concealment will stop your attempt to identify, it means that you must manage your perception check to see the caster.
I agree with this as well. It just makes it harder.
Remember the rules are just an approximation of life, overriding that is the goal to make the system fair for all involved.
If you were to use concealment and say "they can't see my casting at all", then every single other NPC and monster does the same, after all if they are casters they are definitely not stupid, and nothing else would be a fair system. So what we are really looking at is eliminating spellcrafting alltogether. But I doubt that's what was wanted, just the ability to use spellcraft on others, but have it not be used on himself.
Which is why the devs have said repeatedly you can't hide your spell-casting. It's better to have one blanket rule like that, so everyone is on equal footing, than a million adjustments that as soon as you use it all the NPCs use it too.
3.5 allowed hiding somatic components of spellcasting via sleight of hand opposed by spot: link. (This skill use was introduced in races of stone iirc)
Ask yourself what would be reasonable if the PCs did this. If you are trying to get away with something you don't want the PCs to be able to do in the future, it may be the wrong answer.
Still and Silent Spell would bring it down to just the PCs noticing something strange about how the NPC is sitting and staring at the combat. If they have spell craft, allow them to notice that she is spell casting. If she has concealment, then stealth could take care of some of this.
Well, this is all interesting, but quick side question. Say you are a wizard and you are using stealth to hide. If you haven't been noticed, could you use the stealth skill to snipe with, say, fiery shuriken?
If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
And it says under fiery shuriken that you make a ranged touch attack for each shuriken, so if you only attacked with one per turn, you could snipe with them.
Obviously you wouldn't be able to snipe with any spell that didn't have you make a ranged attack roll, like fireball. You also wouldn't be able use sneak attack with it either, unless you were a 10th level arcane trickster. But it would make stealth a little more of an asset to casters so they could better stay away from the battlefield while still utilizing their range. Make multiclassing for better stealth nicer too.
|
There are only a very few ways to cast spells stealthy.
1) Metamagic feats - Still spell + Silent spell + eschew materials feat = a spell that is cast without any gestures, vocal and material components.
2) Spellsong - for bards. As a swift action, you may combine your casting time of a spell with a Perform check. Observers must make a Perception or Sense Motive check opposed by your Perform check to realize you are also casting a spell.
Spells are usually flashy and quite obvious, even if someone can't tell what spell you are casting, they can clearly see you are casting a spell.
Think of it this way; even if you still, silent, and eschew the spell and are, effectively, just standing there glaring at them, you're likely going to be surrounded by some kind of visual that can't be shut off (ie. a nimbus or aura of energy). So if they can see you, even if you're not chanting or gesticulating or sprinkling bat guano, they know that something is up.
That is only if there is someone with Detect Magic or the equivalent active. Most people can't naturally see magical auras; that's why there are spells for it. Even with Detect Magic, they need to be concentrating on the area (which would possibly fall under the category of readied action, depending on how you play it).
Actually, IIRC, I believe developers have stated that most spells have some sort of obvious physical manifestation of energy (not related to detect magic) that makes it obvious you are casting a spell, even if it has no components to it (either due to metamagic feats or the spell just not possessing any). Detect Magic works more after spells have been cast to see if objects are magical or detect a lingering aura of magic.
Have you seen the illustrations in the books where it looks like people are casting magic with glowing runes popping up around them and stuff like that? That is what it looks like "in game" based on developer commentary.
|
Yeah, the argument for the glowy runes or what have you is that there's no penalty on spellcraft checks to identify spells with no components, which indicates something noticable happening during casting aside from the actual components. Jason Bulmahn on the subject.
So if this is for PFS...
Why am I asking all this? A specific situation I will be running in the near future makes me question if this is a viable option.
...
[I would love it if Paizo could work in some PFS legal system for GMs to punish metagamers.]
This is your best bet:
"My stronger spells all take too long to cast, so I couldn't use them against the bad guys without them disturbing my concentration. You guys watch my back and I'll cast a protection spell on all of us." So long as the PCs decide to trust her and not make spellcraft checks on this fictitious protection spell, she can cast individual spells on them without arousing suspicion. She just has to drop a hint that there may be an invisible caster running around, which is well within the scenario for her to do.
|
So here is some food for thought....
So 'casting a spell' always provokes an AoO. As far as I know, the rules (RAW) don't care if you use Still, Silent, and Eschew metamagic feats to hide your spellcasting. If you are next to a foe and you cast even with those feats in play, then you still suffer an AoO (unless defensive). So its obvious that the caster is doing something to trigger that AoO.
In my games, I have always just added +5 to the DC where a caster uses a metamagic feat like Still Spell. Using Still and Silent would be +10 and throw Eschew in there for a plus +15 when trying to ID a spell as its being casted.... Maybe a similar bonus is in order to Stealth checks to hide casting? Hmmm I dont know...