Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
So the three issues pointed out with this feat so far:
1. It might be time consuming.
2. It might be too powerful (differences of opinion here of course).
3. If no one knows you are doing anything (you succeed on your bluff) how could casting provoke an Attack of Opportunity? The feat doesn't say anything about preventing AoOs.
I feel like the answer to 3 is critical to the answer to 2.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
So the three issues pointed out with this feat so far:
1. It might be time consuming.
2. It might be too powerful (differences of opinion here of course).
3. If no one knows you are doing anything (you succeed on your bluff) how could casting provoke an Attack of Opportunity? The feat doesn't say anything about preventing AoOs.
0. We don't actually know how noticeable spellcasting is without these feats. We don't for example know if psychic spellcasting is noticeable.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Who actually provokes while casting anyway? Doesn't everyone cast defensively if they're in a position to draw AoO?An issue with PCs gaining access to mid-Diplo buffing/murderous commands, is that NPCs won't gain that option, so it pushes older scenarios towards obsolescence faster.
I mean, of course all scenarios age because new material comes out while the scenarios stay the same. But this adds a new dimension to when players can do things while NPCs can't.
I'm also surprised there's not a penalty for spell level. I'd expect high-level spells to be more noticeable. More swirly magical energy and all that, just like Concentration checks.
Another question this raises: just because people don't notice you're casting, doesn't technically stop it from provoking an AoO...
I'm trying to think how that would play out for NPCs.
GM: Okay, PC1 and PC2 you get to make an attack of opportunity against NPC A.
PC1: Why? what is he doing
GM: You don't know, he just dropped his guard for a moment.
PC1: Okay, I hit him (misses)
PC2: (ditto)
GM: Okay, PC 3, give me a will save.
PC1: Hey guys, I think he cast a spell.It seems like if canny casting still provokes AoO, it won't be secret for long.
People whose AC is better than their concentration check. Or with high DR.
|
|
A note on the "it soaks time" argument: NPCs can (and, IMO, should) take 10 on most checks.
but wait, they can't do that... they are distracted by the possibility of combat - there are PCs (i.e. Murder hobos) in the area.
Not quite understanding the "LOL" in here.
There are a number of situations in the game that come up wherein an NPC or PC has a 95% chance of success or failure. The probability of the 5% result occurring rapidly scales given iteration: 9.75% given 2 rolls, 14.3% in 3, 18.5% in 4, etc. Rather than bother for crit fishing in the worst possible sense of the phrase, why not fast forward to the part that matters?
The same applies to skills, albeit in a less straightforward fashion. If a party of 4 is trying to stealth past 4 NPCs, the party will almost always fail - there are too many opportunities for one of the NPCs to exceed one of the players' rolls (barring Stealth Synergy, at least). At a certain level of investment, though, it's reasonable to let the NPCs just take 10 to speed up the story. Are we looking at a party with Stealth Synergy and minimum stealth bonus of +10 with NPCs that have a Perception of +2 across the board? Why waste the players' time? Why waste yours?
For the Cunning Caster feat, if the caster is sitting at +20 Bluff and there's a room full of people that could notice it with terrible mods, why roll for everyone? Why not take 10 and save the time, particularly when you know that a room of 20 people is essentially a take 20 by itself?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
nosig is referencing the "when can you take ten" debate that roams randomly around this forum, sneaking into threads, and killing them (or at least dragging them irrevocably off target.
He is heavily invested in one side of the argument, but is using the other side's argument here to demonstrate it's flaws, hence the LOL.
|
|
nosig is referencing the "when can you take ten" debate that roams randomly around this forum, sneaking into threads, and killing them (or at least dragging them irrevocably off target.
He is heavily invested in one side of the argument, but is using the other side's argument here to demonstrate it's flaws, hence the LOL.
This is what I get for not paying attention to the longer-running arguments.
|
0. We don't actually know how noticeable spellcasting is without these feats. We don't for example know if psychic spellcasting is noticeable.So the three issues pointed out with this feat so far:
1. It might be time consuming.
2. It might be too powerful (differences of opinion here of course).
3. If no one knows you are doing anything (you succeed on your bluff) how could casting provoke an Attack of Opportunity? The feat doesn't say anything about preventing AoOs.
You can make Spellcraft checks against spells as they are being cast to identify them, even if they have no components. So something must be noticeable.
Spell-like abilities, which have no components, provoke AoO's, so something must be noticeable.
I'm trying to think how that would play out for NPCs.
GM: Okay, PC1 and PC2 you get to make an attack of opportunity against NPC A.
PC1: Why? what is he doing
GM: You don't know, he just dropped his guard for a moment.
PC1: Okay, I hit him (misses)
PC2: (ditto)
GM: Okay, PC 3, give me a will save.
PC1: Hey guys, I think he cast a spell.It seems like if canny casting still provokes AoO, it won't be secret for long.
GM: *has NPC A cast defensively*
Party: *assumes NPC A is readying an action or delaying*GM: *secretly rolls a will save for PC 3, passing a note with the result- either "you just succeeded at a will save" or "PC 1 has his back turned. Take your best shot!"*
Or, if casting defensively isn't viable and a five foot step won't do it…
GM: NPC A suddenly falters, and his guard drops. PC1 and PC2, you can make attacks of opportunity if you want.
PC1: Sure! *misses*
PC2: *suspicious look at GM* I don't take the bait.
GM: *secretly rolls a will save for PC 3, passing a note with the result- either "you just succeeded at a will save" or "PC 1 has his back turned. Take your best shot!"*
|
|
Just to say, even 3 or more components for a -12 to bluff are not a big problem if you put that feat on a halfling/gnome/kitsune sorcerer/(blood)arcanist/mesmerist/(lotus geisha)bard.
Most NPC don´t have such a high perception.
This is a good pointer though for things that might be worked on.
And if it is only to reduce table variation a bit.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
0. We don't actually know how noticeable spellcasting is without these feats. We don't for example know if psychic spellcasting is noticeable.So the three issues pointed out with this feat so far:
1. It might be time consuming.
2. It might be too powerful (differences of opinion here of course).
3. If no one knows you are doing anything (you succeed on your bluff) how could casting provoke an Attack of Opportunity? The feat doesn't say anything about preventing AoOs.You can make Spellcraft checks against spells as they are being cast to identify them, even if they have no components. So something must be noticeable.
Spell-like abilities, which have no components, provoke AoO's, so something must be noticeable.
I use those same arguments, and I agree that they suggest spells are somehow noticeable. However, it's only an implication, not a clear rule. So it leaves questions like:
If an invisible spellcaster casts a spell, can you see the spell (and thereby pinpoint the caster)? Because if spells are glowing lightshows then they totally should give away the caster's location just like carrying a torch would.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
but carrying a torch does NOT "...give away the caster's location..." if they are invisible. It does increase the light level in an area - if it is already lower then normal light - but the source of the light is not visible. And so should be hard to detect - much like a spotlight that you can's see the source of. You'll see the effects (an area of light) - but only if you were in the dark before.0. We don't actually know how noticeable spellcasting is without these feats. We don't for example know if psychic spellcasting is noticeable.So the three issues pointed out with this feat so far:
1. It might be time consuming.
2. It might be too powerful (differences of opinion here of course).
3. If no one knows you are doing anything (you succeed on your bluff) how could casting provoke an Attack of Opportunity? The feat doesn't say anything about preventing AoOs.You can make Spellcraft checks against spells as they are being cast to identify them, even if they have no components. So something must be noticeable.
Spell-like abilities, which have no components, provoke AoO's, so something must be noticeable.
I use those same arguments, and I agree that they suggest spells are somehow noticeable. However, it's only an implication, not a clear rule. So it leaves questions like:
If an invisible spellcaster casts a spell, can you see the spell (and thereby pinpoint the caster)? Because if spells are glowing lightshows then they totally should give away the caster's location just like carrying a torch would.
Expect Table Variation
Most people would argue since invisibility does not hide the light from the torch, it is going to at the very least pinpoint their square.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
But... an invisible person carrying a torch outside in daylight...1) we can't see the torch.
2) we the torch doesn't effect the light level of the surroundings.
(Assuming a lit torch)
It doesn't say invisibility doesn't hide light levels, it says it doesn't hide light. Can you see the light of the flame of a torch in daylight? That is an interesting question. I have used a torch in daylight. I have used a flashlight, and I have lit campfires in daylight. Certainly, It can be hard to tell if a flashlight is on in daylight unless you shine it on a shadow. Campfires is depends. Sometimes the flames are hard to see unless you cast a shadow on them, but some times it is very easy.
Certainly in anything short of daylight, the flame of a torch should be visible.
Then you just have the question where does the source of the light stop and the light begin? I would say the (visible) flame is the light coming off of the heated gasses rising from the torch (which you can't see even without an invisibility spell.) Other people would say the flame is the source of the light (and thus invisible) and all you can see is the light reflected off objects in the room.
All sort of room for ETV.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
My personal take on spell visibility is little sparkly (not glowing, just highly reflective) motes. (That way I don't get headaches when spell casters cast in darkness or invisible.)
It also means necromancy spells can have little sparkly black motes, without getting into things like light that is actually black.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
And spell visibility just got faqed:
What exactly do I identify when I’m using Spellcraft to identify a spell? Is it the components, since spell-like abilities, for instance, don’t have any? If I can only identify components, would that mean that I can’t take an attack of opportunity against someone using a spell-like ability (or spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components) or ready an action to shoot an arrow to disrupt a spell-like ability? If there’s something else, how do I know what it is?
Although this isn’t directly stated in the Core Rulebook, many elements of the game system work assuming that all spells have their own manifestations, regardless of whether or not they also produce an obvious visual effect, like fireball. You can see some examples to give you ideas of how to describe a spell’s manifestation in various pieces of art from Pathfinder products, but ultimately, the choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details. Whatever the case, these manifestations are obviously magic of some kind, even to the uninitiated; this prevents spellcasters that use spell-like abilities, psychic magic, and the like from running completely amok against non-spellcasters in a non-combat situation. Special abilities exist (and more are likely to appear in Ultimate Intrigue) that specifically facilitate a spellcaster using chicanery to misdirect people from those manifestations and allow them to go unnoticed, but they will always provide an onlooker some sort of chance to detect the ruse.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Indeed. I'd say that the spell itself is a "new thing", and thus comparable to things the invisible caster picked up after the casting. And therefore the spell is visible.
Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the answer to 3 is critical to the answer to 2.So the three issues pointed out with this feat so far:
1. It might be time consuming.
2. It might be too powerful (differences of opinion here of course).
3. If no one knows you are doing anything (you succeed on your bluff) how could casting provoke an Attack of Opportunity? The feat doesn't say anything about preventing AoOs.
So the reason you provoke Attacks of Opportunity when you cast is not because someone knows you are casting. It happens because you focus on casting the spell to the exclusion of moving around and paying attention to your surroundings. It is why when you Cast Defensively you roll a Concentration check. You are making a roll to see if you can maintain focus on the spell while still paying some attention to your surroundings and continue moving around.