In the Black Market player companion there's a feat called Cunning Caster. Here's what it does:
Prerequisite(s): Deceitful, ability to cast 1st-level spells.
Benefit(s): 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.
The fact that this is a feat annoys me. Why does this have to be a feat? Why couldn't have this been a new thing anyone could do with the Bluff skill, instead of locking it behind a feat prerequisite? It especially annoys me because in my game I was already allowing players to do this kind of thing with the Bluff skill (and will continue to do so) but now that this feat exists the implication is that what I was doing before now goes against RAW.
In a greater sense, my question is why Piazo chooses to go down this path of creating new feats that essentially restrict players from performing actions. Of course Paizo needs to create content, but this could have very easily been presented as a new use for Bluff instead of a feat; where before if a player wanted to do something with a skill (or in general) that wasn't covered by the rules the GM would make a decision, but now it's like, "Oh, so you want to do X action now? Do you have the feat for that?"
Has any developer ever addressed this question?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My guess would be because it's safer to make something a feat than a mechanic because there's less of a potential backlash (it may be perceived that a feat could be disregarded more easily than a mechanic) and because it's probably easier to balance a feat than an entirely new mechanic. You have to give up something in order to get to it.
3.X/PF is an exception-based system with an implicit methodology that you need a specific mechanical "token" of some kind in order to do something that's beyond the norm. Feats are one of the easiest such tokens to quantify outside of class, race, etc.. Part of the theoretical balancing of feats is feats chains, in making more desirable feats you must take less desirable in order to get the feats you want (for a possible example: see "Deceitful" above. It's part of the strategy in character building side of the game.
In a greater sense, my question is why Piazo chooses to go down this path of creating new feats that essentially restrict players from performing actions. (...) before if a player wanted to do something with a skill (or in general) that wasn't covered by the rules the GM would make a decision, but now it's like, "Oh, so you want to do X action now? Do you have the feat for that?"
Ok, with some simplification I see two cases / types of GMs here:
a) GMs keeping to the letter of the book. They wouldn't allow spell hiding unless it's officially allowed by Paizo. In this case it wouldn't matter whether it's a feat or a new feature of the skill - it's now possible. The difference for the player would be just that the feat has a cost.
b) GMs using the books as backbone but make up their own rules where needed / wanted. They probably allowed spell hiding in the past, maybe not. Now, with Black Markets out, they will probably use the new official system, but maybe they will stick with an own version - or still disallow it. So it depends on the GM whether things really change.
That said, it's a mechanic which could be very powerful in certain situations. It allows to counter counterspelling, to manipulate social situations more easily and to strike first while still negotiating with opponents. So demanding a feat for it seems reasonable...
I guess whenever a DM makes a ruling on something which isn't covered in the books there's a risk that Paizo will come along and make a different rule for it later on. If Power Attack hadn't existed before and came out in a new book I'm sure many DMs would say it annoyed them since they were already allowing players to take attack penalties in exchange for damage bonuses. This sort of thing seems bound to happen.
If you'd prefer to see some benefit to all this imagine players who want to play stealthy mages who secretly cast spells but were trapped in games with DMs who said something like, "Nope, there's no DC under Bluff for secretly casting a spell, so there's no rule for it. Even if you use Still and Silent Spell people will see your nose twitch or something. Show me an official rule and then maybe I'll let you try it."
@Snorb - If you've optimized your Bluff check the penalties might not make it difficult to succeed.
This is from a Player Companion. Those don't have the "authority" to hand out free systems that can be used with no investment (eg the introduction of chakras in Occult Adventures). What they can do is make a feat. If there's going to be some general system (unlikely, but possible), it will be in Ultimate Intrigue.
...Don't most spells have vocal and somatic components and thus give you a -8 penalty to this check as it is?
Why even bother at that point?
Not for psychic casters. The worst they can get is -4 for an obvious visual effect, but even then they don't have a lot of those. Combine with a Mesmerist's half-level to bluff and it's pretty reliable.
Paizo tends to make options that foreshadow new systems, like the Mysterious Avenger Swashbuckler archetype and the Vigilante. This is probably a shorter version of a system to be released in Ultimate Intrigue as well.
Paizo tends to make options that foreshadow new systems
This seems a throwback to the Dawnflower Dissident PrC though.
Powe creep.
Power seep
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has any developer ever addressed this question?
The design team has.
You couldn't hide your casting with a skill for a while, the design team has been saying that spells require special abilities to hide ever since occult adventures.
Has any developer ever addressed this question?The design team has.
You couldn't hide your casting with a skill for a while, the design team has been saying that spells require special abilities to hide ever since occult adventures.
Actually they said that has always been the case, but people have been running it "wrong" for so long they think it is the right way and it was "suddenly changed" on them.
Actually they said that has always been the case, but people have been running it "wrong" for so long they think it is the right way and it was "suddenly changed" on them.
To be honest, it is sort of how it has always been since they removed the line that made it work the way it did in 3.5e. But the time they specifically and repeatedly said "this is the way x works" was during the occult adventures playtest because some people thought psychic magic was undetectable.
Actually they said that has always been the case, but people have been running it "wrong" for so long they think it is the right way and it was "suddenly changed" on them.Has any developer ever addressed this question?The design team has.
You couldn't hide your casting with a skill for a while, the design team has been saying that spells require special abilities to hide ever since occult adventures.
Just like we've always been at war with East Asia and allied with Eurasia.
Just like we've always been at war with East Asia and allied with Eurasia.
Where's that Beating a Dead Horse guy when you need him?
The issue comes down to GM style. For some GM's, if it isn't spelled out in the rules then you can't do it. For other GM's, the rules are not exhaustive and if a player wants to do something else then a ruling should be made based on similar rules. These two styles, while not completely exclusive, do tend to lead to very different perspectives on feats. The closed-book style leads to the conclusion that a feat is usually necessary to do any non-trivial action, while the open-book style leads to the conclusion that a feat is usually not necessary (but may be necessary to do it without penalty).
That, fundamentally, is the issue. Feats like these make no sense for an open-book GM'ing style; they establish precedents that complicate the rulings inherent in such a style. I long ago ruled that the sleight of hand skill can be used to hide any action, subject to a penalty at GM discretion. So I've basically been allowing Cunning Caster for free all this time.
eg the introduction of chakras in Occult Adventures
Technicalities; there is no class that offers both ki and psychic sensitivity, so you either need to do some unfavorable multiclassing or pay a feat tax. Not to mention you have to pay ki and take the risk of being dazed every round you're using this. If you want a posterboy example of an overly-conservative subsystem, this is it. I can't see ever allowing it at my table without extensive houseruling to make it functional.
Technicalities; there is no class that offers both ki and psychic sensitivity, so you either need to do some unfavorable multiclassing or pay a feat tax.
Actually there is an archetype for it in Occult Origins.
Edit: Ninja'd
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with the OP on this one. It does seem like the Paizo team will work out the mechanics for something to do in game that can or should be an option for most anyone, but will make it a Feat, which means you can't do it unless you spend the slot for it. OR it will be locked into an archetype, often with other changes to the class that you don't want, so you need to dip which, in Pathfinder, is usually not worth it, just to get that one feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just like we've always been at war with East Asia and allied with Eurasia.Where's that Beating a Dead Horse guy when you need him?
Sorry for the delay, lots of paladin, balance, CMD threads to visit.