|
Am I the only one who thought there should have been some option to do this all along? It never made sense to me that through various means, a spell could have no components whatsoever and no matter how well hidden I were, the act of spellcasting created a magical beacon screaming, "HERE I AM!"
Arcane tricksters, assassins, many bard and even rogues with UMD (and others) would all benefit from the ability to cast spells on the sly.
I'm sad to see these left out of PFS. Are they really that ripe for abuse? Each of these feats requires another feat, prerequisite feats are not all that powerful and server more as a tax than anything IMO. These are hardly going to be automatic choices. They are likely to be used in a handful of builds, most of which aren't going to be full casters.
|
|
The problem is, my argument can be summed up 100% as "I always thought that it should exist". Which is an argument based totally on opinion rather than fact.
Not to mention that I'm biased since I have a wayang dark tapestry oracle that would love to take these feats. The oracle's side gig is sneaking into peoples' homes in the middle of the night and frightening them half to death with his mad prophecies. Unfortunately he hasn't found a way to monetize that industry yet, so he works for the Society to both make some coin and further his own research by finding and absconding with rare tomes and other writings (at least the Dark Archives think it's a worty goal). Being able to cast while hidden would make him better at the things we wants to do.
Could it be abused? I have no idea. I'm not really into character optimization, so I'm not able to answer that question with any authority.
.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
huh? We have rules.
There is Spellsong which allows you to conceal a spell within your song. (And I think there might be an archetype that does it as well.)
We know that simply eliminating material, somantic, and verbal components is not enough to conceal the spell.
There are some other unanswered questions, but we have a lot of rules already.
One balancing factor is Combat Casting. If observers cannot see that you are casting an effect, they cannot AoO. Which would you rather have? +4 to cast defensively? or invisible casting?
Granted Cunning caster has penalties for each component, but it is a lot easier to boost your bluff than your concentration. But it is not affected by disruptive or by the power of the spell.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Also, how does this interact with scenario design? A lot of scenarios have "talk or fight" encounters. A diplomacy check is 10 rounds. That is 10 rounds of prebuffing and save or sucking that can be cast before combat starts, ending with a guaranteed surprise round for the caster. And it begs the question of "what is a obvious effect." If you drop a curse on someone to give them -4 to attack rolls, is that "obvious"?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Alternately:
Deaf Oracle with Max Bluff, a +5 bluff item and Murderous command. No obvious effect, no spell components. His bluff vs your perception. (Deaf oracles treat all spells as silent)
All the NPCs know is that suddenly one of them turned on the others. (Or for that matter, the party barbarian just raged and slaughtered the wizard if the caster is an NPC.)
|
|
Alternately:
Deaf Oracle with Max Bluff, a +5 bluff item and Murderous command. No obvious effect, no spell components. His bluff vs your perception. (Deaf oracles treat all spells as silent)
All the NPCs know is that suddenly one of them turned on the others. (Or for that matter, the party barbarian just raged and slaughtered the wizard if the caster is an NPC.)
Which he does for all of 1 round. Murderous Command isn't useful in every combat (plenty of monster types are immune to mind-affecting spells) and is still a low-level spell, so the save DC will only go so high, especially if you are putting a bunch of resources into skills instead of save DCs.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
One round on the parties pounce barbarian probably means someone is dead.
One round on the NPC BBEG's follower may split their alliance and mean the party winds up finishing off the victor. After all, it is hard to diplomacize "It wasn't my fault, magic made me do it" in the middle of combat.
And while many creatures are immune to mind affecting, an awful lot of big bads in PFS are humanoids of various types.
And that is just one example (of many) of horrible things you can do.
|
The only problem I see with these feats (other than the previously mentioned vagaries of detecting spellcasting and interaction with psychic spells) is that particularly in the case of Cunning Caster it could sometimes slow things down.
1) *I* certainly don't know what components all the spells I cast have. Even on my spontaneous casters. For a cleric I might have 20-40% (or more) different spells from one adventure to the next. So each time a spell is cast I need to look up the components.
Now I know the counterargument to this: players need to know the components if they want to use the feat. However it won't always happen. I have had plenty of times where players didn't even know how long their spells took to cast or that they had expensive focus components.
2) If you cast a spell on one of the 5 people in the room, all 5 are going to have to make opposing perception checks. That's more time. Not a big deal in the case of one spell but it is if you cast four in a row.
I don't think the time issue is insurmountable. It's a matter of the GM laying down the law on the first point. "The first time you cast each spell using that feat you need to have the sourcebook for that spell open to show to me right away."
The second point is a bit trickier. As soon as I saw Cunning Caster I thought of one of my characters who would use this feat on *every* single cast. I started doing the math... "let's see, glibness wouldn't help with this, neither would a Mask of Stony Demeanor (if I finally stooped to buying one) so if I cast a spell that all the conditions applied to I'd only have an effective Bluff of +17. Not a 'tap' condition but worth trying." But then I thought about everyone rolling perception constantly (both allies and enemies). That could take quite a while. I can't be the only one who thought of doing this. We'll have to reign ourselves in.
|
|
a Mask of Stony Demeanor (if I finally stooped to buying one)They errataed it. The price is now reasonably high. (8000 gp)
Yeah, that was a comment about how I view the item in general. Great negotiating tool but I don't think a completely inanimate face and a voice with no inflection should give you a bonus to convince someone you're their long-lost college drinking buddy. But that's a personal opinion. It does what it does from a mechanical standpoint. Just because I choose not to use it doesn't mean others should be bound to my opinion.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I agree. But that would require a system more supportive of degrees of success. (I.E. bluff should have 3 possible outcomes, They don't believe you, they don't know, they do believe you.) The mask would increase the odds of possibility 2, but decrease the odds of 1 and 3.
But the system is not granular enough for that.
|
|
As for mind-affecting spells, the target knows that someone has tried to overcome their will. Negotiation is pretty much going to stop right there, even if the save succeeds.
How many buff spells don't have obvious effects? Someone puts their hand of the barbarian and suddenly his muscles bulk up, that's pretty obvious. Most of the non-obvious ones are probably defensive in nature. I'd certainly encourage a fairly broad interpretation of what is obvious. The point of the feats is not to hide the spell effect, but to hide who is the caster.
|
|
One round on the parties pounce barbarian probably means someone is dead.
Remember that murderous command requires that you attack the nearest ally. If the squishy is the nearest target, you've already done something wrong.
It doesn't necessarily require that you use all your abilities, especially those with limited uses like rage. As a GM I would not allow you to deal non-lethal damage under the effects of murderous command, but I would allow you not to use things like rage.
Even if the casting was obvious, the PC still ends up dead to the pounce barbarian. Also any PC that has the ability to kill another PC in a routine full-attack needs to take steps to make sure they are as resistant to being dominated as possible. That's not a problem of the dominating ability.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
One round on the parties pounce barbarian probably means someone is dead.Remember that murderous command requires that you attack the nearest ally. If the squishy is the nearest target, you've already done something wrong.
It doesn't necessarily require that you use all your abilities, especially those with limited uses like rage. As a GM I would not allow you to deal non-lethal damage under the effects of murderous command, but I would allow you not to use things like rage.
Even if the casting was obvious, the PC still ends up dead to the pounce barbarian. Also any PC that has the ability to kill another PC in a routine full-attack needs to take steps to make sure they are as resistant to being dominated as possible. That's not a problem of the dominating ability.
You attack "to the best of your ability," that sounds like rage to me. And since it is a 1 st level spell, and the NPC is only going to have one encounter today, they can probably cast it a lot of times.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
How many buff spells don't have obvious effects? Someone puts their hand of the barbarian and suddenly his muscles bulk up, that's pretty obvious.
Haste?
Mage armor?Heroism?
For that matter, does bull strength make you muscles look bigger? Does that mean you can tell a belt of strength off an NPC because his muscles suddenly get smaller?
|
|
How many buff spells don't have obvious effects? Someone puts their hand of the barbarian and suddenly his muscles bulk up, that's pretty obvious.
Haste?
Mage armor?
Heroism?For that matter, does bull strength make you muscles look bigger? Does that mean you can tell a belt of strength off an NPC because his muscles suddenly get smaller?
In my opinion, effects that modify your physical stats should have an obvious effect if you see both the before and after. Haste should have an obvious effect as you are now moving at super-human speeds. Heroism is a 10 min/level spell. It was probably cast already.
|
|
The ability to cast spells in social situations with impunity is just too good in this campaign which has far more social situations than most.
Maybe, but I've found very few where social situations become combat situations intentionally. Failed social situations can turn into combat, but the encounter has already gone wrong.
That being said, if your tactic were to engage in diplomacy as a stall tactic while your allies buff with the intent of actually engaging in combat, the talker better be ready to roll a bluff check fairly soon into it. You may get a round or two off, but that's it if you blow it.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
In my opinion, effects that modify your physical stats should have an obvious effect if you see both the before and after. Haste should have an obvious effect as you are now moving at super-human speeds. Heroism is a 10 min/level spell. It was probably cast already.
How many buff spells don't have obvious effects? Someone puts their hand of the barbarian and suddenly his muscles bulk up, that's pretty obvious.
Haste?
Mage armor?
Heroism?For that matter, does bull strength make you muscles look bigger? Does that mean you can tell a belt of strength off an NPC because his muscles suddenly get smaller?
So here we're already on the slippery slope of GMs having to make calls as to which spells have visible effects even if those aren't written into the spell descriptions.
Even if you make "the right" calls, it's still not a happy situation to be in. Particularly if you get players who dislike your call, say the previous GM ruled differently, and there's no way to prove who's right.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
In my opinion, effects that modify your physical stats should have an obvious effect if you see both the before and after. Haste should have an obvious effect as you are now moving at super-human speeds. Heroism is a 10 min/level spell. It was probably cast already.
How many buff spells don't have obvious effects? Someone puts their hand of the barbarian and suddenly his muscles bulk up, that's pretty obvious.
Haste?
Mage armor?
Heroism?For that matter, does bull strength make you muscles look bigger? Does that mean you can tell a belt of strength off an NPC because his muscles suddenly get smaller?
So here we're already on the slippery slope of GMs having to make calls as to which spells have visible effects even if those aren't written into the spell descriptions.
Even if you make "the right" calls, it's still not a happy situation to be in. Particularly if you get players who dislike your call, say the previous GM ruled differently, and there's no way to prove who's right.
Are those "bigger muscles" visible through my full plate? Does the plate itself grow to accommodate them?
Do I burst out of my tight fitting clothes like the Hulk?
Yes, but only your pants. It is kind of a disturbing spell... (Thats why mages always wear robes.)
:)
As far as observable effect, the only rule I know of is that there is a sense motive check to see if someone is under the effects of an enchantment. I suppose you could extrapolate that to a perception check to see if someone is under a transmutation effect. But that is getting awfully close to house rules territory. (In my opinion it is still within the realm of GM discretion laid out in the guide, but I know others disagree with me about where that line lands.)
|
|
In my opinion, effects that modify your physical stats should have an obvious effect if you see both the before and after. Haste should have an obvious effect as you are now moving at super-human speeds. Heroism is a 10 min/level spell. It was probably cast already.
How many buff spells don't have obvious effects? Someone puts their hand of the barbarian and suddenly his muscles bulk up, that's pretty obvious.
Haste?
Mage armor?
Heroism?For that matter, does bull strength make you muscles look bigger? Does that mean you can tell a belt of strength off an NPC because his muscles suddenly get smaller?
So here we're already on the slippery slope of GMs having to make calls as to which spells have visible effects even if those aren't written into the spell descriptions.
Even if you make "the right" calls, it's still not a happy situation to be in. Particularly if you get players who dislike your call, say the previous GM ruled differently, and there's no way to prove who's right.
If GMs aren't empowered to make those calls, then why have them? Just have the players run the adventure from a script.
The idea that every GM is going to run every encounter exactly the same is an impossible goal. The only way to do that is if you had a system that succinctly described all its mechanics and described all rules effects within the universe of those mechanics. The last time a system tried to do that it was derided as being a table-top version of a video game.
|
|
The ability to cast spells in social situations with impunity is just too good in this campaign which has far more social situations than most.
I don't think "impunity" is quite right. If you build for it - and I mean really build for it; being a pure charisma class, buying items, and taking Skill Focus as well as Deceitful - you can probably get to around an effective +24 to +28 Bluff (maybe a bit more) on a spell with just verbal and somatic components at level 10. So it's unlikely that you will be noticed but it isn't uncommon for NPCs to have a greater than +10 perception in Tier 10-11, especially in later seasons. At earlier levels your bonuses will be quite a bit less. (Maybe around an effective +8 to +10 at level 5.)
This isn't necessarily out of the power band. An archer ranger is built to hit enemies in combat and do a lot of damage. You are highly likely to be able to cast and not be noticed; the archer is highly likely to hit with every one of her arrows and do a ton of damage. Hyperspecialization will always result in being really good at one thing and that's always been a part of role-playing games.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Hyperspecialization will always result in being really good at one thing and that's always been a part of role-playing games.
Except in this case, the hyper specialization you are already doing to get high save DCs for your spells, which has already had the side effect of making you an excellent party face, is also making you able to cast spells undetected in social situations and allowing you to cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity.
I'm not convinced that is automatically ban-worthy, but I would like to see some careful thought first. One thing I would like to see (that I don't personally have time to do) is what happens if you take a save or suck optimized Deaf oracle or a sorcerer without this feat. What do they give up to take this, and what do they get in return?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's hard to know if the ability never makes it into play.
I prefer to let stuff in and ban it later if it proves to be a problem rather than make everything new have to justify its existence. If I didn't want to deal with that, I just play the Core Campaign.
Oh hell to the no. Then you get people who build a character around it and get stuck, and have to effectively pass off a character as dead. Absolute worst result possible.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Oh hell to the no. Then you get people who build a character around it and get stuck, and have to effectively pass off a character as dead. Absolute worst result possible.But it's hard to know if the ability never makes it into play.
I prefer to let stuff in and ban it later if it proves to be a problem rather than make everything new have to justify its existence. If I didn't want to deal with that, I just play the Core Campaign.
The campaign has demonstrated time and time again that allowing things as exploratory and then banning them produces incredible amounts of player anger and people threatening to leave PFS.
I agree it is hard for the feat to prove itself without this, but short of allowing a explicit "playtest," it is nearly impossible to do.
|
|
Hyperspecialization will always result in being really good at one thing and that's always been a part of role-playing games.Except in this case, the hyper specialization you are already doing to get high save DCs for your spells, which has already had the side effect of making you an excellent party face, is also making you able to cast spells undetected in social situations and allowing you to cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity.
I'm not convinced that is automatically ban-worthy, but I would like to see some careful thought first. One thing I would like to see (that I don't personally have time to do) is what happens if you take a save or suck optimized Deaf oracle or a sorcerer without this feat. What do they give up to take this, and what do they get in return?
So the first and probably biggest thing they give up is going to be the 2 (minimum) or 3 (optimized) feats you have to take. (Skill Focus for optimization.) So 3 feats. That's nothing to sneeze at. For a save-or-suck that most likely means giving up either Spell Focus or Metamagic feats.
The next thing is the skill points. Oracles and (especially) sorcerers don't get many of those. Bluff is not a class skill for oracles, but there is a handy trait for that (which also gives you a +1).
I did some quick building. A level 5 pure charisma oracle/sorcerer with Deceitful, Skill Focus: Bluff, Cunning Caster, max ranks in bluff, a Circlet of Persuasion, and a +2 charisma headband is rocking a +23 bluff. So it comes down to what components your spells have. Let's assume you have 2 of the 5 components (V,S) so you take a -8. That's a +15. Pretty decent. You have about a 75% chance to beat someone with a +10 perception. (that's really rough, I didn't do the math on that one.)
I should point out this hypothetical level 5 only has about 3500 gp to spend on all other gear combined.
Sorcerers have Eschew Materials for free which gives them a slight edge. Deaf Oracles have the advantage of getting rid of all V components. However they give up the ability to be an effective party face. They are great at using this feat, but not at talking to nobles.
Overall I think the three feats alone is an effective tradeoff for a 75% chance of success. Perception should generally keep pace with your rising bluff skill up until level 10 when your Skill Focus and Deceitful bonuses double. But things start to change dramatically at level 10 anyway.
|
|
Oh hell to the no. Then you get people who build a character around it and get stuck, and have to effectively pass off a character as dead. Absolute worst result possible.But it's hard to know if the ability never makes it into play.
I prefer to let stuff in and ban it later if it proves to be a problem rather than make everything new have to justify its existence. If I didn't want to deal with that, I just play the Core Campaign.
Which is why the campaign should allow more permissive rebuilds for errata. Feat got banned and you don't want to play the character any more? Make something else with the same XP/GP.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I would probably swap out Skill Focus (Bluff) for Masterwork Tool (voluminous robes) (+2 to bluff checks to conceal spell casting.) at least at low levels.
If you are worried about skill points, how about an witch or wizard with cunning wordplay (bluff) (use int for charisma.) Downside is you lose eschew materials, upside (for wizard) is you get some extra feats to play with.
I also don't have a good read on how many components most buff spells have. I agree 2 seems like a reasonable assumption, but I haven't done the research.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably swap out Skill Focus (Bluff) for Masterwork Tool (voluminous robes) (+2 to bluff checks to conceal spell casting.) at least at low levels.
If you are worried about skill points, how about an witch or wizard with cunning wordplay (bluff) (use int for charisma.) Downside is you lose eschew materials, upside (for wizard) is you get some extra feats to play with.
I also don't have a good read on how many components most buff spells have. I agree 2 seems like a reasonable assumption, but I haven't done the research.
Fair point. Also don't forget mesmerist (+1/2 level on all Bluff checks, usually none of the components).
|
|
I would probably swap out Skill Focus (Bluff) for Masterwork Tool (voluminous robes) (+2 to bluff checks to conceal spell casting.) at least at low levels.
Didn't consider that. Or don't swap it and you get an extra +2.
If you are worried about skill points, how about an witch or wizard with cunning wordplay (bluff) (use int for charisma.) Downside is you lose eschew materials, upside (for wizard) is you get some extra feats to play with.
The other downside is that you lose the Circlet of Persuasion bonus as Bluff would no longer be a charisma check. You'll have to wait until you can afford a more expensive competence bonus item specific to Bluff.
Fair point. Also don't forget mesmerist (+1/2 level on all Bluff checks, usually none of the components).
Yeah, the occult classes/spells were brought up at the beginning as one of the sticky points. Along with the question of "what's visible" (mentioned initially, discussed in depth later) there may be enough to keep the feat from being allowed.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Fair point. Also don't forget mesmerist (+1/2 level on all Bluff checks, usually none of the components).I would probably swap out Skill Focus (Bluff) for Masterwork Tool (voluminous robes) (+2 to bluff checks to conceal spell casting.) at least at low levels.
If you are worried about skill points, how about an witch or wizard with cunning wordplay (bluff) (use int for charisma.) Downside is you lose eschew materials, upside (for wizard) is you get some extra feats to play with.
I also don't have a good read on how many components most buff spells have. I agree 2 seems like a reasonable assumption, but I haven't done the research.
On the one hand, thematically, I would love to see this feat in play, because I think it really fits a sneaky mesmerist.
On the other hand, from a mechanical perspective, this feat might be overpowered on a sneaky mesmerist.
On the third hand, I don't actually have Occult Adventures, so I don't know what the mesmerist spell list looks like or how their other powers synergise with this.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
You know what might balance it for me? A cumulative penalty for each spell you cast within a certain time frame.
Sneaky casting a couple of spell is just a clever solution. Sneaky casting a whole barrage of spells can be unbalancing.
I also feel like the penalties should apply (as bonuses) to the other person's perception score. As written, if you summon a creature to appear inside a room, you take a -4 to your bluff check. It should be a +4 to the perception check of those who can see the result. (I.E. people outside the room who can't see the summoned creature should have a harder time spotting what is going on.)
But that is just my pet peeve, not a reason to keep the feat out of play.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
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...
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...
True- Pathfinder just failed to include mechanics for stopping for a few seconds to let your guard down. If they had, this would look an awful lot like that.
|
|
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.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
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.