Cunning Caster and the recent FAQ

[ohako]

Trying to wrap my head around this new feat and the recent FAQ on spells and casting. Here's the reference material.

Heroes of the Streets wrote:

Cunning Caster: When casting a spell, you can attempt a Bluff check (opposed by observers' Perception checks) to conceal your actions from onlookers. If the spell requires material components, you take a –4 penalty on the Bluff check.

If the spell requires somatic components, you take a –4 penalty on the Bluff check. If the spell requires verbal components, you take a –4 penalty on the Bluff check. If the spell requires a focus or divine focus, you take a –4 penalty on the Bluff check. If the spell produces an obvious effect (such as a summoned creature or visible spell effect), you take a –4 penalty on the Bluff check, and even if your check is successful, observers still see the spell effect (though they fail to notice that you are responsible for it). All Bluff check penalties are cumulative.

Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:

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.

Let's say a gestalt mesmerist/druid is trying to get to the naval port at, uh, Os Misely with a couple of wanted protocol androids. He casts a psychic suggestion at a couple of, uh, dormtroopers. He's using Cunning Caster to conceal his spellcasting.

Question #1: According to the FAQ, every spell has an obvious effect (twinkly CGI lights or some such). Does this mean that every use of Cunning Caster starts out with -4 on the Bluff check?

Let's say the dormtroopers are fooled into not knowing where the suggestion came from. However, any troopers that aren't suggested get wise to the fact that somebody cast a spell (because it's obvious). So, either you have to convince all the guards that one of them is a shapeshifting traitor (perhaps you could suggest it to one of them), or if that fails the troopers all pull out their claster rifles and you get to have a thrilling flame blade battle in the parking lot of a hive of scum and villainy.

Question #2: Do I have that right? #2b: Can anyone think of a case where Cunning Caster could be put to any use?

[mdt]

I think the feat, being written before the FAQ, is intended only to penalize glaringly obvious spell effects. Dancing lights, magic missile, fireball, and the like. Things like whisper or suggest should have some visible effect, but it doesn't have to be a neon sign, just something anyone could notice with a perception check. So, suggest might make the target's eyes change color for a brief flash, and also tint the target's vision that same color for an eyeblink. Obvious but not glaring.

So, my inteprestation would be...

1) No.
2a) Your bluff check goes up against everyone, not just the target. Anyone you fail to bluff knows you have cast a spell.
2b) With the type of spells you expect, spells with metamagic feats, spells with minimal visible impact, and by people who have heavily invested in bluff (probably oracles and sorcerers).

[KingOfAnything]

Core Rulebook FAQ wrote:

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.

Not all spells have an obvious effect. They all have some manifestations. Cunning Caster allows you to attempt to disguise those manifestations or distract others' attention away from them using Bluff. #1. No

mdt has it right. You make Bluff checks versus everyone. The value of Cunning Caster is in allowing you a method to circumvent the otherwise obvious manifestations. Cunning Caster is the specific that trumps the FAQs general.

[mdt]

KingOfAnything wrote:

mdt has it right.

You know, I never get tired of hearing that. :)

[Kazaan]

Obvious effects wouldn't require a check to see; a Fireball is an example of an obvious effect. Once it is cast, everyone knows Fireball has been cast. By contrast, when casting any spell, there are subtle effects about which the FAQ is talking. If you cast Suggestion, it doesn't have an obvious visual effect, but it still has the subtle perceptive effect inherent to any spellcasting.

Thus, you wouldn't take the -4 penalty on account of there being no obvious visual effect and the feat itself accounts for diverting attention from any subtle effects. If, by comparison, you had "subtly" cast a Fireball, people will certainly notice that a Fireball has been cast, but, if you check is successful, they won't be able to tell who cast it.

[mdt]

The problem with the FAQ is a lack of precision.

If I am wearing a baseball cap that is black, it is obvious I am wearing a baseball cap, and if you are looking for a guy in a baseball cap, I'm going to be a guy in a baseball cap.

If I am wearing a baseball cap with 30 LED lights in various shades of purple, green, yellow, and red with a beanie propeller on the top and a battery powered siren on it, I'm going to be a guy who is noticed by everyone immediately.

Both baseball caps are obvious (you aren't going to confuse the black baseball cap for a stetson! Or for my hair...), but it is not as obvious as the LED encrusted whining beanie cap.

The feat basically let's you turn the brim of the black cap inside out and kind of make it look like a beret, or let's you put a wig on the cap and fool people into thinking you have hair when are bald. The cap is still there, just concealed. Concealing the whining LED encrusted beanie topped cap is a lot harder however.

[CampinCarl9127]

1) No. Manifestations equal obvious visual effects. This is implied implicitly in the magic rules as well as explicitly in the FAQ.

2a) Suggestion has no obvious visual effects. Therefore if you successfully bluff all onlookers, they are not aware a spell was even cast. If you cast a more obvious spell like fireball, they would be aware that a spell was cast but would have no idea where it came from. In this way, cunning caster allows you to discretely pull off spells and is particularly useful for spells without obvious visual effects.

2b) Use enchantment spells with some metamagics to lower the bluff penalties and you can have a pretty reliable way to manipulate people. Discretely scan the monologuing BBEG for all his magic gear so you're informed about his capability pre-fight. Throw out buff spells without letting the enemies learn that you're a caster. Whip out a fireball and point to the rogue, claiming he did it. The limits are your imagination.

[CBDunkerson]

ohako wrote:

Let's say a gestalt mesmerist/druid is trying to get to the naval port at, uh, Os Misely with a couple of wanted protocol androids. He casts a psychic suggestion at a couple of, uh, dormtroopers. He's using Cunning Caster to conceal his spellcasting.

Question #1: According to the FAQ, every spell has an obvious effect (twinkly CGI lights or some such). Does this mean that every use of Cunning Caster starts out with -4 on the Bluff check?

No. Why would it be a conditional statement if it applied in all conditions?

The Cunning Caster condition refers to the effect of the spell AFTER the casting is complete. Does it do something that the observer can immediately sense? If so, -4. Suggestion does not have an obvious effect like 'summon monster', 'fireball', 'stinking cloud', 'heat metal' (obvious only to the person wearing the metal armor), et cetera.

Quote:

Let's say the dormtroopers are fooled into not knowing where the suggestion came from. However, any troopers that aren't suggested get wise to the fact that somebody cast a spell (because it's obvious).

If they are fooled by Cunning Caster and the spell doesn't have any obvious effect after being cast then they don't know that there was a spell cast at all.

Quote:

Question #2: Do I have that right? #2b: Can anyone think of a case where Cunning Caster could be put to any use?

No, and any time you don't want someone to know that you are casting a spell.

[gustavo iglesias]

Ok,lets make an example.

Whenever a character casts a spell, Magic glowing runes appear in the air around your hands. Like this. Those runes, who look arcane an mystical and every important, actually just say "this is an spell. This rune is here to fulfill the manifestation clause of spells". With an spellcraft check or read Magic, you can understand the message in the runes, but even untrained people gets that a spell has been cast.

The feat allows you to hide your hands. By making the gestures behind a table, or under your coat/cloak, nobody notice the runes. So nobody notices sugestion is being cast, at all.
On the other hand, if you cast Meteor Swarm, even if they can't track WHO casted meteor swarm, everybody notices that meteors are falling, and that they don't seem natural, because we are inside a building and they didn't break the roof, just appeared from nowhere.

Hope this helps

[gustavo iglesias]

Some spellcasters in pathfinder with glowing hands and stuff that make pretty clear examples of "manifestations", that you could hide (puting your hands in your pockets, behind a cloak, hiding below the desk of a table, whatever:

One
two
three
Four
Five
six

[My Self]

I think it's something that is best left up to you and your GM. Although personally, I'd say that it lets you conceal the fact that you're the one who is casting, rather than the fact that the spell is being cast at all. If it's only you and one other guy in the room, and the wiggly spell effect targets him, you're going to have a terrible time trying to convince him that you didn't cast a spell on him. If you're in a crowd or in a chaotic combat, it'll be less difficult to conceal the fact that you're casting.

[thejeff]

Personally, I suspect it's significant that both the FAQ and the feat use similar language: "obvious effect (such as a summoned creature or visible spell effect)" and "obvious visual effect, like fireball".

Seems to me those probably refer to the same thing and distinguish it from the manifestations of spellcasting that the FAQ is about. Which are still obvious, but not so much so as a fireball or a creature appearing out of thin air.

If the spell has obvious effects, you take the penalty. If it doesn't, the normal manifestations accompanying spell casting don't. How you want to fluff that is up to you, as is the exact nature of the manifestations.

Note, by the way, that in the "spellcasting isn't obvious" paradigm, this feat would always have a penalty, since it would only be needed for spells with components or obvious effects - all other spells already couldn't be detected.

[Gisher]

Ohako, one use for Cunning Caster would be the spell Mislead. If no one realizes that you cast a spell, then they aren't going to suspect that they are now looking at an illusory duplicate. I would imagine that a lot of illusion spells might work better if the viewers didn't know that a spell of some type had been cast.

[ohako]

Okay, so far so good. Consensus holds that I can bluff the guards into not noticing the casting, and then I can get away with various spells that aren't totally obvious.

One more question before busting out the kitsune mesmerist with a snake familiar: would psychic spells, without metamagic, still incur Bluff penalties for using thought and emotion components?

[CBDunkerson]

ohako wrote:

One more question before busting out the kitsune mesmerist with a snake familiar: would psychic spells, without metamagic, still incur Bluff penalties for using thought and emotion components?

No, thought and emotion components aren't 'observable' to begin with, and thus don't impose a penalty on the Bluff check to 'hide' them.

[Rushley son of Halum]

To me the FAQ is an effort to prevent people using still spell, silent spell and eschew materials to achieve the same result with no need for a bluff check or stealth check of any kind.

I think the best view would be to assume that every spell has some effect that lets the target or those around it know that a spell has been cast. They may not know the effect or the source but they will always be aware that something happened. So you can't walk through a room throwing around detect thoughts without anyone noticing, though they might not notice it's you.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a series of back and forth posts. Folks, if you're not attempting to answer the question being asked or provide assistance to the original poster, take it elsewhere.

[Azothath]

ohako wrote:

Heroes of the Streets wrote:

Cunning Caster: ...

-4 (cumaltive) for Material, somatic, verbal, focus, or obvious spell effect.

That's -16 to Bluff vs Perception for something like a standard casting of fireball spell. Metamagic rods of Still and Silence can help, though holding them might be a giveaway.

It makes sense to call the spells without obvious effect and just 1 component subtle (hide 1 thing rather than 3). Eschew Materials and Silent Spell will help reduce the spellcasting requirements and increase your subtle list.
With the subtle spells, mostly enchantments and illusions, you are just going to be at -4 Bluff but probably they'll be 1 level higher due to applied metamagic, otherwise -8 Bluff.
Anything that requires a touch attack (but not ranged touch) is going to be obvious as observers may not see the casting but everyone will see the touching.
Reach Spell is going to be a desirable metamagic to decouple the direct touching.
Invisibility and Vanish would be interesting as the effect makes targets think there isn't anything there (illusion as opposed to summoning/conjuration or evocation).
There are a few GMs that might give you -4 all the time, so talk to your GMs that you normally use.

From the practical side, you've spent at least 3 feats and raised the level of your target subtle spells for Cunning caster.
Many PCs maximize out their Perception skill, so your Bluff at level +2 to 4(CHA) +3(class skill) -4 penalty versus their Perception check at level +0(WIS) +0 to 3(class skill) with 4 to 6 attempts (you have to fool everyone). Your odds of success run about 28% to 11% versus an average party (3@.65, 1@1, then 2@.5 ,2@.65,2@1). That doesn't seem a successful strategy.

[mdt]

Ways to pump Bluff :
Headbands
High CHA
Circlet of Persuasion
Skill Focus
Trait
Racial

For a Charisma based caster, a the headband is a given, and likely they are also the face, so the circlet boosts diplomacy as well.

Probably the best caster to try this would be a summoner, especially if they take the ability to get an evolution and add a +8 racial bonus to Bluff for a single Evolution point!

[Slithery D]

Mesmerists are the best subtle casters, no relevant components requiring metamagic mitigation, half class levels to Bluff skill, and the allure Bold Stare augmentation puts a penalty on perception checks, albeit only effecting one target.

I have a hard time seeing this feat as making sense for any non-psychic casters.

[Abraham spalding]

mdt wrote:

Ways to pump Bluff :

Headbands
High CHA
Circlet of Persuasion
Skill Focus
Trait
Racial

For a Charisma based caster, a the headband is a given, and likely they are also the face, so the circlet boosts diplomacy as well.

Probably the best caster to try this would be a summoner, especially if they take the ability to get an evolution and add a +8 racial bonus to Bluff for a single Evolution point!

Couple of class abilities offer 1/2 class level bonuses to bluff as well. Um... Deceitful as well...

Master Spy gives level bonus to bluff
Razmiran Priest same
Bard Street performer (1/2 level)
Rogue (rake) gains a morale bonus to bluff
rogue (Sczarni Swindler) also gets a bonus
rogue (spy) gets a 1/2 level bonus to bluff to deceive
Rakshasa bloodline level 1 power gives a +5 to bluff... and has deceitful on its bloodline feats list

Just off the top of my head.

[Abraham spalding]

Slithery D wrote:

Mesmerists are the best subtle casters, no relevant components requiring metamagic mitigation, half class levels to Bluff skill, and the allure Bold Stare augmentation puts a penalty on perception checks, albeit only effecting one target.

I have a hard time seeing this feat as making sense for any non-psychic casters.

A little easier for a deaf oracle, or someone with the deaf curse.

[Azothath]

Cunning Caster gives you a mechanic via skill checks that used to be impossible without several spells. So that's great.

I think Ultimate Intrigue in April 2016 might have some more classes and stuff that work along this idea (just going by the title of the book).
I agree that with the way psychic casting works, some of the classes in Occult Adventures have a leg up on this feat. Kineticist is usually super obvious.

the biggest hurdle in pulling this off is that to be effective you have to fool all of your observers with the possible exception of the spell target who needs to fail your spell DC. Multiple checks mean your probability of success drops dramatically (combinatorials) unless you are almost certain of success. So limiting penalties and pimping out Bluff would be the way to go.

Why fool all the observers? Well, this is a game and we know how game logic goes. If one guy notices and points at you - the rest will assume he's correct and mob logic and/or metagaming ensues. This feat requires some setup and/or pre-casting to recover when single to multiple failures occur.
Users should get a shot with a straight out Bluff roll vs Sense Motive when they go, "hey guys - it wasn't me... I think it was {name of scapegoat}" with a -5/-10 penalty. I think this will be more successful as most don't increase Sense Motive skill, though wisdom based casters will be the guys with a decent bonus.

so using this feat you'll need a more focused character design, 3 feats (including Cunning Caster) and a class that can pump Bluff(Cha). Diplomacy, Sleight of Hand might be handy skills. I think you'll also have to do some setup before spellcasting sometimes and be prepared in case of failure.

Unchained Rogue/Signature Skill has some interesting effects to mollify Bluff failures. This would mean a level dip for a spellcaster or another feat expenditure. More skill points for this kind of themed character might not be a bad thing.

[QuidEst]

This is nice for Rakshasa Sorcs, since a failed bluff check still leaves the spellcraft check, with failure there making them think you're just refreshing your Unseen Servant spell (which you keep active as evidence.)