|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
A lot of people seem to have this outlook. I totally disagree with it. When a game system has been out for as long as pathfinder, it gets a bloat of options. They come out with a feat for swinging on a rope and suddenly people think nobody can swing on a rope without having the feat. That is silly. Yes, the feat should allowed someone to do it better than someone without, but it should be like the improved combat maneuver feats. Anyone can try a combat maneuver, they just aren't as good at it as someone with the feat. Special abilities should never be read as limiting what players can do without them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thoroughly hate people that say that that casting can never be hidden, and I thoroughly disagree with the RAW ruling on this. It shouldn't be easy, and it shouldn't be automatic, but it should be doable. All that saying it can't be done without specific class abilities does is make it so that most enchantment and illusion spells, as well as many other spells, can't be used in most of the situations they are most relevant, and that strikes me as being counterproductive. I get that they shouldn't be easy, but usually functionally impossible seems a bit over the top for me.
If a caster is willing to invest skill points in the the appropriate skill or silent or still metamagic feat, or asks for a custom feat, I have no problem giving them the opportunity to try to hide their casting. They still have a chance of failure and they have invested something into improving their chances of success that could have gone elsewhere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they're trying to mask verbal components, I call for a Bluff check. For somatic/material components, I call for a Sleight of Hand check. The roll would be opposed by an observer's Sense Motive or Spellcraft, whichever is higher.
If they're trying to mask verbal components, I call for a Bluff check. For somatic/material components, I call for a Sleight of Hand check. The roll would be opposed by an observer's Sense Motive or Spellcraft, whichever is higher.
That is more or less how I approach 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...
Actually a strong voice doesn't have to be loud, it just has to be clear. Basically, you can speak normally (or as quietly as possible for it to still counted as strong) but it has to "intelligible" (...as intelligible magic gibbering can be) to those who "can" hear it.
I don't know about hand movements though.....
There also used to be rules in 2nd edition dnd in the Darksun campaign that could be used for such things.
@Charender
Thank you for quoting 3.5 spellcraft rules, it's been so much time since i had read them i had forgotten what it wrote.
It's weird that PF used a slightly different table, can it be a legal issue that Paizo didn't use the exact table from 3.5?
Other than that, while the wording used in the spellcraft skill changed (specifically PF used more explanatory text than 3.5 which had a better table) it seemed that it became more unclear in PF, sure it says that in order to identify a spell you need to be able to "cleary see it" and then it talks about perception modifiers but (as evidenced in this thread) it's not clear enough.
Given my re-reading of the spellcraft rules (both in 3.5 and in PF) i am starting to think that you should be able to identify a spell that has neither somatic nor verbal nor material components.
@wraithstrike
Where do you get your quote on SLAs on 3.5, here it doesn't use the exact same wording (specifically the part you bolded).