| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you guys handle players who constantly ask to cast spells quietly to not be detected? Or to make bluff checks to disguise their frantic hand movements by making other frantic hand movements...
Obviously going off the assumption they have neither Still or Silent spell
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Verbal (V)
A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). a spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance of spoiling any spell with a verbal component that he tries to cast.
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.
Strong voice, and precise hand movement. If they don't do those and don't have Silent or Still spell, they can't cast a spell with verbal/somatic components.
In 3.5e, there was a skill trick in Complete Scoundrel called Conceal Casting that allowed you to make a Sleight of Hand check to cast a spell without revealing that you're doing so. It's up to the GM if they want to allow 3.5e material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opuk0, you could recommend they play psionic manifesters... then they wouldn't have somatic or verbal components. Of course, every time they manifest, it snows dead butterflies around their heads for a moment, or smells intensely of mastadon farts, or everyone within a few feet thinks they've acquired tinnitus, but hey... you can't win 'em all.
But seriously, the rule is that you can't conceal casting/manifesting. So you can't. Even with Silent and/or Still Spell, you're simply removing those specific requirements for spell-casting. You still can't hide that you're casting. The caster still rolls his eyes back, or pops into a deep concentration-sweat or something, because neither of those feats says that it overrides the fundamental can't-conceal rule.
Your players can try to explain their PCs' actions after the fact, but generally casting is always* evident.
*Barring certain circumstances, such as casting a bunch of buffs outside line-of-sight while in silence or something. As in, if the casting cannot be observed at all, it is by definition concealed. Perhaps being invisible while using Silent Spell, for instance.
Tell them it's how spellcasting works in Pathfinder. If they don't like it, tough.
By RAW you can still use Spellcraft to identify a spell even without Verbal and Somatic components - maybe there's some kind of brief magical glow that people can see and identify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW you can still use Spellcraft to identify a spell even without Verbal and Somatic components - maybe there's some kind of brief magical glow that people can see and identify.
Technically you are correct, but spellcraft also says that it uses the same modifiers as perception so one could make a case of a spellcasting (without any components) being unable to be unidentified, but then you are running to issues like how can you identify SLAs.
|
By RAW you can still use Spellcraft to identify a spell even without Verbal and Somatic components - maybe there's some kind of brief magical glow that people can see and identify.Technically you are correct, but spellcraft also says that it uses the same modifiers as perception so one could make a case of a spellcasting (without any components) being unable to be unidentified, but then you are running to issues like how can you identify SLAs.
Personally I have a houserule inheritently magical beings (classes with bloodlines, dragons, djinn Etc) can sense magic automatically (essentially a free detect magic at will although you still need time to study it) and what your identifying is the shaping of magical energies. The gestures, words and effects (blue fireballs vs red) but the magic shaping is the same. Yes this does mean a wizard without detect magic active can't identify a spell being cast or effect in progress.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW you can still use Spellcraft to identify a spell even without Verbal and Somatic components - maybe there's some kind of brief magical glow that people can see and identify.Technically you are correct, but spellcraft also says that it uses the same modifiers as perception so one could make a case of a spellcasting (without any components) being unable to be unidentified, but then you are running to issues like how can you identify SLAs.
The devs have also back the position that the RAW is the RAI. I don't like it however. Personally I think if the spell is silenced, stilled, and you do not use a component, then it should not be able to be identified, and I feel the same way about SLA's. Otherwise I see no reason why people can not identify SU's, other than because the rules do not say you can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is actually a PFS scenario in which an NPC bard does what the OP's players are trying to do.
Azuretta, on the other hand, is more willing to talk. If she
is the murderer, when she hears the PCs coming or while they
speak to Captain Veane, she quietly casts innocence on herself,
granting her a +10 bonus on Bluff checks for 1 minute per
level. If the PCs are present when she casts it, she attempts to
hide the verbal and somatic components as part of humming
and dancing to a song in her head with her unmodified Bluff
check used against PCs’ Spellcraft checks.
Author: Mark Moreland. Take that for what you will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is actually a PFS scenario in which an NPC bard does what the OP's players are trying to do.
** spoiler omitted **
Author: Mark Moreland. Take that for what you will.
Sometimes authors break rules. As an example a certain module has illusions doing nonlethal damage, but by the spell and the illusion rules that is not possible.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually thought that was one of the coolest aspects of Psychic Magic presented in the Occult Adventures playtest.
Unlike Divine and Arcane magic, psychic spells don't have verbal or somatic components. Instead, they have Thought and Emotion components. Your concentration check becomes a bit more critical, but otherwise it's much easier to cast spells incognito. That's a huge advantage in some roleplay scenarios.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is actually a PFS scenario in which an NPC bard does what the OP's players are trying to do.
** spoiler omitted **
Author: Mark Moreland. Take that for what you will.
Oh, and there's also the Spellsong feat:
Spellsong
You can blend the power of your performance and spellcasting.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, bardic performance class ability, able to cast 1st-level spells.
Benefit: You can combine your bardic performance and your spellcasting in two ways.
First, you can conceal the activity of casting a bard spell by masking it in a performance. 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. This uses 1 round of your bardic performance ability, regardless of the spell's casting time.
Second, as a move action, you can use 1 round of bardic performance to maintain a bard spell with a duration of concentration. You can cast another spell in the same round you are using bardic magic to maintain concentration; if you do this, your concentration on the maintained spell ends when you end the bardic performance the spell is part of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I add +5 DC for each component missing (V,S, M) to identify the spell, so a spell like ability is usually +15 DC.
Obviously a house rule, but since this thread is not in the rules forum...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is actually a PFS scenario in which an NPC bard does what the OP's players are trying to do.
** spoiler omitted **
Author: Mark Moreland. Take that for what you will.
Oh, and there's also the Spellsong feat:
Spellsong
You can blend the power of your performance and spellcasting.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, bardic performance class ability, able to cast 1st-level spells.
Benefit: You can combine your bardic performance and your spellcasting in two ways.
First, you can conceal the activity of casting a bard spell by masking it in a performance. 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. This uses 1 round of your bardic performance ability, regardless of the spell's casting time.
Second, as a move action, you can use 1 round of bardic performance to maintain a bard spell with a duration of concentration. You can cast another spell in the same round you are using bardic magic to maintain concentration; if you do this, your concentration on the maintained spell ends when you end the bardic performance the spell is part of.
If that works with Lingering Performance that feat is crazy good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opuk0, you could recommend they play psionic manifesters... then they wouldn't have somatic or verbal components. Of course, every time they manifest, it snows dead butterflies around their heads for a moment, or smells intensely of mastadon farts, or everyone within a few feet thinks they've acquired tinnitus, but hey... you can't win 'em all.
Which they can suppress with a concentration check, which they can't fail if they expend their focus to take 15 on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opuk0, you could recommend they play psionic manifesters... then they wouldn't have somatic or verbal components. Of course, every time they manifest, it snows dead butterflies around their heads for a moment, or smells intensely of mastadon farts, or everyone within a few feet thinks they've acquired tinnitus, but hey... you can't win 'em all.Which they can suppress with a concentration check, which they can't fail if they expend their focus to take 15 on it.
IIRC the check is only a 15. It may have changed with DSP, but I dont think it is too difficult. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The devs have also back the position that the RAW is the RAI. I don't like it however. Personally I think if the spell is silenced, stilled, and you do not use a component, then it should not be able to be identified, and I feel the same way about SLA's. Otherwise I see no reason why people can not identify SU's, other than because the rules do not say you can.By RAW you can still use Spellcraft to identify a spell even without Verbal and Somatic components - maybe there's some kind of brief magical glow that people can see and identify.Technically you are correct, but spellcraft also says that it uses the same modifiers as perception so one could make a case of a spellcasting (without any components) being unable to be unidentified, but then you are running to issues like how can you identify SLAs.
Same here. Also, this is exactly how things worked in 3.5. No verbal/somatic/material component, no spellcraft check.
There are pros and cons to both approaches.
If you take the Pathfinder approach(IE spells make you give off some kind of tell-tale sign that you are casting), then things Like AoOs for spellcasting make more sense, and you can ID SLAs and such. The down side is that it renders a lot of spells useless if they are cast with any witnesses, especially ones with ranks in spellcraft. You can pretty much forget ever using illusions, charm person, and similar spells because everyone is going to know you cast a spell, and anyone with spellcraft will have a good chance to know exactly what you cast. "That isn't really a Dragon, I just saw you cast Major Image..."
If you go the 3.5 route of making spells ID by their components, then you are not giving casters a free pass, but they do have options for covering up their casting via still/silent spell.
My other major gripe against the PF way of doing things is that they baked this ability into class features of a few classes, so you have to be a specific class/archtype to be able to hide your spellcasting. It leave an cleric of a trickster diety or similar concept out in the cold. If PF had a feat like this, I would be less upset.
Subtle Casting
Description: Your spellcasting and SLAs do not create any inherent signs of magic being used. Observers must pass a spellcraft check to even know you are casting a spell. Further, increase the DC of all Spellcraft checks to identify your spells by +5 for each component(verbal, material, or somatic) the spell is missing.
So a spell that normally has verbal and somatic components being cast silent and stilled with subtle Casting and Eschew materials would be +15 to the spellcraft DC, and if you don't have spellcraft or you fail the check, you won't know that a spell was even being cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you take the Pathfinder approach(IE spells make you give off some kind of tell-tale sign that you are casting), then things Like AoOs for spellcasting make more sense, and you can ID SLAs and such. The down side is that it renders a lot of spells useless if they are cast with any witnesses, especially ones with ranks in spellcraft. You can pretty much forget ever using illusions, charm person, and similar spells because everyone is going to know you cast a spell, and anyone with spellcraft will have a good chance to know exactly what you cast. "That isn't really a Dragon, I just saw you cast Major Image..."it means you have to be smart, expert, and strategic with your spell casting.
1. If you succeed in getting the Charm Person to hold, the person you just charmed won't care that you cast the spell on him... it's in the nature of the spell. And hopefully you'll be done with him by the time the spell wheres off.
Assuming you can get that person alone.
2. The secret of casting illusion spells is of course not to be observed when doing so.
Which greatly limits their usefulness. "Excuse me Mr. Bandit, I need to go into the bushes to pee..."
3. Aoo's from Spellcasting are not from the savage fighter KNOWING that you're spellcasting, it's from the drop in your defense, that you do unless you cast defensively and risk losing the spell.
Except you automatically know when someone concentrations has lapsed without having to make any kind of sense motive check. Further, that same savage fighter can ready an action to hit that the squishy mage when they try to cast a spell, and even if the squishy mage casts defensively, the savage fighter still gets their attack, and it can still disrupt the spell. There are several edge cases like this that fall into the "How exactly did they know the mage was casting" category. I was simply trying to say that the PF way of doing things makes things like this easier to understand from a simulationist perspective.
All in all, the PF way of doing things is a pretty big hit to anyone who wants to play a more subtle caster. It basically means you are at the DM mercy, and if the DM doesn't give a chance to create openings, you can pretty much kiss any hope of being subtle goodbye.
You can pretty much forget ever using illusions, charm person, and similar spells because everyone is going to know you cast a spell, and anyone with spellcraft will have a good chance to know exactly what you cast. "That isn't really a Dragon, I just saw you cast Major Image..."
That's the beauty of magic.
It doesn't matter that you literally just saw someone cast major image. That there's an active illusionist in the room doesn't change that there's also A DRAGON!!!
Also works for charm person. I mean, yeah, you used to think that enchanter guy was a bad dude, but clearly you were under some other weird compulsion and he had to cast that spell so you could understand the truth: you're besties!
If you fail your save, you believe an illusion. How you justify it isn't important... you believe. If you fail your save, you're charmed. How you justify it isn't important... you're charmed.
Remember... aside from having witnessed the casting of major image, you can literally shove your arm into the dragon's gut, fail your save, and still think it's real. Doesn't matter that you just got undeniable physical evidence... you failed your save, it's real. You could stand in the middle of it, fail your save, and still think "well, I guess I'm getting eaten... sure hurts a lot!"
Magic is magic. Let it be magical.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually require a little creativity to cast a spell stealthily, but try not to make it too difficult.
In yesterday's game one of the PCs wanted to stealthily Detect Magic on an NPC. One of the other PCs created a diversion and the caster ducked behind cover to cast the spell (the diversion was suitably loud to cover verbal components).
I do find it's in practice often difficult to get targets for enchantments alone. I managed it only about twice when playing my bard. Maybe could have pulled it off a few more times, but there were usually easier ways to get what I wanted.
Remember... aside from having witnessed the casting of major image, you can literally shove your arm into the dragon's gut, fail your save, and still think it's real. Doesn't matter that you just got undeniable physical evidence... you failed your save, it's real. You could stand in the middle of it, fail your save, and still think "well, I guess I'm getting eaten... sure hurts a lot!"
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline. A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.
Weirdo, what constitutes proof? Sure, my hyperbolic examples of standing inside an illusion and otherwise coexisting with it were over-the-top. But surely a Spellcraft check is mere evidence, not proof. I mean, at best you'd get the +4 bonus...
I guess what I'm saying is that I always approach rules interpretation from the standpoint of "what makes sense?" An entire school of basically useless spells doesn't - to me - make sense, so I interpret things like proof liberally... for instance if one of your allies casts the spell and tells you "dragon's not real, mate... just foolin' the natives". Maybe.
Weirdo, what constitutes proof? Sure, my hyperbolic examples of standing inside an illusion and otherwise coexisting with it were over-the-top. But surely a Spellcraft check is mere evidence, not proof. I mean, at best you'd get the +4 bonus...
I guess what I'm saying is that I always approach rules interpretation from the standpoint of "what makes sense?" An entire school of basically useless spells doesn't - to me - make sense, so I interpret things like proof liberally... for instance if one of your allies casts the spell and tells you "dragon's not real, mate... just foolin' the natives". Maybe.
If I successfully identified a spell cast by an illusionist that created a dragon as major image, that is proof. If I am a spellcaster I am going to be at least a little savvy to illusions if I don't want to have my lunch money stolen every day at wizard school.
The illusion school are not useless - they are actually some of the most powerful if used creatively. They just have a weakness: in-combat, other spellcasters can call your bluff. Your average bandit doesn't know you just cast major image, so it works just fine on him.
If your interpretation of 'proof' is too liberal you get into hyberbolic silliness like your original examples.
*edit*
As a DM, I have had good mileage out of major image by having my monster use it to conjure shadow-form creatures as if they had cast shadow conjuration... and then also casting shadow conjuration. One of the players had detect magic up as they suspected there may be illusions abound... and after the first shadow encounter dismissed the rest as illusions. The suprise round was brutal.
The devs have also back the position that the RAW is the RAI. I don't like it however. Personally I think if the spell is silenced, stilled, and you do not use a component, then it should not be able to be identified, and I feel the same way about SLA's. Otherwise I see no reason why people can not identify SU's, other than because the rules do not say you can.By RAW you can still use Spellcraft to identify a spell even without Verbal and Somatic components - maybe there's some kind of brief magical glow that people can see and identify.Technically you are correct, but spellcraft also says that it uses the same modifiers as perception so one could make a case of a spellcasting (without any components) being unable to be unidentified, but then you are running to issues like how can you identify SLAs.Same here. Also, this is exactly how things worked in 3.5. No verbal/somatic/material component, no spellcraft check.
I don't remember this being in the core book in 3.5, which book was it in?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 3.5 such a spell counted as a "purely mental" action, but it was never outright stated, that you could not spellcraft it. However a few statements led to this belief that is what the intent was in 3.5.
Using a spell-like ability is a purely mental action
A spell-like ability cannot be used as a counterspell, and it is not subject to counterspells. A counterspell involves recognizing a spell as it is being cast, then quickly altering that same spell so as to create an opposite effect that cancels out the original spell. A spell-like ability is essentially hardwired into its user's psyche, and its power is released mentally. The process is sufficiently different from spellcasting so it that doesn't allow a foe to identify the spell-like ability, and a counterspell cannot interfere with the spell-like ability's magical energy as it can with a spell. As noted earlier, a spell-like ability is subject to dispelling (provided the spell it duplicates is subject to dispelling). When a spell-like ability can be dispelled (as most of them are) one can effectively counter them with a dispel magic spell. While spell-like abilities are not normally subject to counterspells, dispel magic is not really a counterspell. When you use dispel magic as a counterspell, what you're really doing is casting a quick, targeted dispel effect at the correct moment to negate the enemy spell and not creating an opposite magical effect that cancels your enemy's spell.
A spell-like ability is essentially a spell without verbal,
somatic, or material components (and is described on page 180
of the Player’s Handbook as being activated “mentally”) so
that qualifies as purely mental.
So since SLA's could not be identified and SLA's were equal to a spell with no component it follows that the intent is for such spells to be beyond the reach of spellcraft.
3. Aoo's from Spellcasting are not from the savage fighter KNOWING that you're spellcasting, it's from the drop in your defense, that you do unless you cast defensively and risk losing the spell.
Except you automatically know when someone concentrations has lapsed without having to make any kind of sense motive check. Further, that same savage fighter can ready an action to hit that the squishy mage when they try to cast a spell, and even if the squishy mage casts defensively, the savage fighter still gets their attack, and it can still disrupt the spell. There are several edge cases like this that fall into the "How exactly did they know the mage was casting" category. I was simply trying to say that the PF way of doing things makes things like this easier to understand from a simulationist perspective.All in all, the PF way of doing things is a pretty big hit to anyone who wants to play a more subtle caster. It basically means you are at the DM mercy, and if the DM doesn't give a chance to create openings, you can pretty much kiss any hope of being subtle goodbye..
If you're playing a subtle caster, that means you're not casting magic in combat. Because once the blades fly, that ship has already sailed.
I don't have a problem that spells usefulness, or more correctly their opportunity may be limited. These limits are part of the things that keep the non-casters in the game as well. It means that the caster player has to think on their feet and work for their instant wins to come into play.
The problem is that you want the subtle casting without doing the work to make it so. Part of that work is actually being subtle.
No, if you are playing a subtle caster by RAW, then you can never cast a subtle spell when anyone other that party members are present.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 3.5 such a spell counted as a "purely mental" action, but it was never outright stated, that you could not spellcraft it. However a few statements led to this belief that is what the intent was in 3.5.
Using a spell-like ability is a purely mental action
A spell-like ability cannot be used as a counterspell, and it is not subject to counterspells. A counterspell involves recognizing a spell as it is being cast, then quickly altering that same spell so as to create an opposite effect that cancels out the original spell. A spell-like ability is essentially hardwired into its user's psyche, and its power is released mentally. The process is sufficiently different from spellcasting so it that doesn't allow a foe to identify the spell-like ability, and a counterspell cannot interfere with the spell-like ability's magical energy as it can with a spell. As noted earlier, a spell-like ability is subject to dispelling (provided the spell it duplicates is subject to dispelling). When a spell-like ability can be dispelled (as most of them are) one can effectively counter them with a dispel magic spell. While spell-like abilities are not normally subject to counterspells, dispel magic is not really a counterspell. When you use dispel magic as a counterspell, what you're really doing is casting a quick, targeted dispel effect at the correct moment to negate the enemy spell and not creating an opposite magical effect that cancels your enemy's spell.
A spell-like ability is essentially a spell without verbal,
somatic, or material components (and is described on page 180
of the Player’s Handbook as being activated “mentally”) so
that qualifies as purely mental.
So since SLA's could not be identified and SLA's were equal to a spell with no component it follows that the intent is for such spells to be beyond the reach of spellcraft.
Also...
15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.
The table for spellcraft directly states that you must see the somatic component or hear the verbal component to have a chance to identify the spell. That implies that if a spell has neither component, then you cannot identify it.
You can pretty much forget ever using illusions, charm person, and similar spells because everyone is going to know you cast a spell, and anyone with spellcraft will have a good chance to know exactly what you cast. "That isn't really a Dragon, I just saw you cast Major Image..."That's the beauty of magic.
It doesn't matter that you literally just saw someone cast major image. That there's an active illusionist in the room doesn't change that there's also A DRAGON!!!
Also works for charm person. I mean, yeah, you used to think that enchanter guy was a bad dude, but clearly you were under some other weird compulsion and he had to cast that spell so you could understand the truth: you're besties!
If you fail your save, you believe an illusion. How you justify it isn't important... you believe. If you fail your save, you're charmed. How you justify it isn't important... you're charmed.
Remember... aside from having witnessed the casting of major image, you can literally shove your arm into the dragon's gut, fail your save, and still think it's real. Doesn't matter that you just got undeniable physical evidence... you failed your save, it's real. You could stand in the middle of it, fail your save, and still think "well, I guess I'm getting eaten... sure hurts a lot!"
Magic is magic. Let it be magical.
As Wierdo pointed out, if given proof that an illusion isn't real, you automatically disbelieve without a save. Unfortunately, what constitutes proof can vary greatly from table to table.
It is not that I am unwilling to let magic be magical. My problem is that with some types of magic, I am left entirely at the mercy of my DM's idea of how magical magic should be.
DM: There is a group of bandits surrounding out.
ME: We need a distraction, I cast major image to make it seem like a monster is attacking all of us.
DM: Well they all saw you cast a spell, and one of them is a caster who ID your spell and yells out "It's an illusion", so they all automatically disbelieve it. Now what?
I charm the prince, but his 2 bodyguards know I just cast a spell on him, and his behavior toward me completely changed. It isn't rocket science to figure out what happened.
This is one of the core problems with playing an illusions or enchantments focused character in PF. The DM has a ton of ways to completely gimp you.
Hell, even casting a benign spell like comprehend languages or tongues can get you in a ton of trouble, because everyone who sees you knows you just cast a spell. If you are dealing with unfriendly group of people, they may interpret your spellcasting action as hostile, especially if they don't know what spell you just cast.
If your interpretation of 'proof' is too liberal you get into hyberbolic silliness like your original examples.
You are exactly correct, except if you are player, you do not get to decide what interpretation is too liberal.
|
|
The dawnflower dissident (prestige class) from Paths of Prestige has this ability:
Penalty Condition
-0 Spell has a range of personal
-5 During combat
-5 Spell has a range of touch
-10 Spell has a range longer than touch
-Spell level ×2 Spell has a visible, audible, or otherwise observable effect
Automatic failure Spell has an observable effect that clearly emanates from the caster
Casting a spell in this fashion increases its casting time to a full-round action (if normally a standard action or less), or doubles the casting time of spells with a casting time longer than a full-round action. A spell cast in this way does not provoke attacks of opportunity from observers that fail to recognize it for what it is. For spells with both verbal and somatic components, the spell still provokes attacks of opportunity from observers unless they fail both their Sense Motive and Perception checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I charm the prince, but his 2 bodyguards know I just cast a spell on him, and his behavior toward me completely changed. It isn't rocket science to figure out what happened.
This is one of the core problems with playing an illusions or enchantments focused character in PF. The DM has a ton of ways to completely gimp you.
Your problem is that while you're using subtle magic, you tried to blunderbuss yourself straight to the end goal by charming the top man on the totem pole and chose the wrong target.
The thing with subtle casters is that they're best on working the long game. You don't go for charming the prince, you work yourself up flunky by flunky and subtly influence their thoughts until you work yourself into a position of influence. If your goal is more short term, i.e. kidnap the prince, charm him anyway, and simply dispose of the bodyguards with the help of your allies.
Illusiionists, Enchanters, etc. are suited for a different game than standard dungeon bashing. They're better for long haul roleplaying scenarios.
Which is exactly my point. Depending on the campaign and/or DM interpretations, illusions and enchantments can be next to useless.
I strongly believe, and it has thankfully always been the case in any games I've been involved in, that if you cast with Still Spell and Silent Spell no one can tell you're casting. Just Silent Spell can be enough if no one is looking at you.
It's the same for SLA's, which have no components.
However, if you aren't using Silent Spell (and also Still Spell if anyone is looking at you, and more often than not someone is), and you aren't very far away (some spells have ranges such that you could be using verbal components loudly as usual, but those without great Perception still wouldn't hear, and no one would notice hand gestures) and you aren't using a feat like Spellsong...everyone who can see or hear you will know you're casting.
By RAW, if they can see the spell being cast, they get a spellcraft check, but also by RAW, all perception modifiers do apply. So in theory, if you have a wizard hitting you will a fireball from 400 feet away, be sure to add +40 to the DC of the spellcraft check. Circumstance modifiers for obstructions and the like would also be well withing the rules.
That's substantially different from, "Hey! There's a strong, clear voice talking funny from that bush over there! Kind of a rhythmic chanting... oh, hm, how weird, a dragon from nowhere. Like... magic..." :/
The thing is, a given GM will rule what makes sense to them - as they should - but it can easily and effectively neuter schools.
Unlike, say, a frost-wizard in Irrisen (unless that location is entirely unknown), you're usually not signing up for a campaign where the very nature of the rules negates your character concept.
The problem is that it's so... hand-waivy.
That said, I do hand-waiving of my own, and generally enjoy it.
That's substantially different from, "Hey! There's a strong, clear voice talking funny from that bush over there! Kind of a rhythmic chanting... oh, hm, how weird, a dragon from nowhere. Like... magic..." :/
The thing is, a given GM will rule what makes sense to them - as they should - but it can easily and effectively neuter schools.
Unlike, say, a frost-wizard in Irrisen (unless that location is entirely unknown), you're usually not signing up for a campaign where the very nature of the rules negates your character concept.
The problem is that it's so... hand-waivy.
That said, I do hand-waiving of my own, and generally enjoy it.
And the other side of the coin is that it is extremely easy for a GM to hand wave or create situations that minimize these issues away for NPCs and thus make illusions and Enchantments extremely powerful against the party.
Yuppers.
It's why I try to be upfront about those sorts of things before they come into play. I'm not, but I try. :)
(For the record, I use the, "you can't see the casting, you can't tell" rule.)
Arcane Trickster gets that as a class ability, and ther are many feats that let you do it while maintaining a performance, for example.
But yeah, no feat or class feature=no dice.
Hurrah for game design that actually LIMITS player options rather than EXPANDS them!
/sarcasm
By RAW you can still use Spellcraft to identify a spell even without Verbal and Somatic components - maybe there's some kind of brief magical glow that people can see and identify.
You can't identify spell-like abilities as they are activated.
Arcane Trickster gets that as a class ability, and ther are many feats that let you do it while maintaining a performance, for example.
But yeah, no feat or class feature=no dice.
Hurrah for game design that actually LIMITS player options rather than EXPANDS them!
/sarcasm
By RAW you can still use Spellcraft to identify a spell even without Verbal and Somatic components - maybe there's some kind of brief magical glow that people can see and identify.You can't identify spell-like abilities as they are activated.
To be fair "activated" and "cast" are both used in the rule book. I know this because of a debate I had here a while back.
I know that "cast" is often used as a short-hand, which is a shame, since it leads to such confusion; there really isn't any actual casting going on so much as "mental activation." That still doesn't make spell-like abilities actual spells, and all rules on identifying SPELLS as they are cast only ever references SPELLS, not spell-like abilities.
Suggest that they play Bard with the feat that allows you to hide your spellcasting within a performance