I think Cunning Caster (and Subtle Devices) should be PFS legal

[ohako]

I've never done this before (advocating a PFS legality issue), and there might be a format or template I'm missing here, but here goes anyway.

We now know (thanks to a recent FAQ) which spells are noticed by onlookers, and which aren't (answer: all are noticed, even without noticeable components).

I have always wanted to pull off the 'these aren't the droids you're looking for' scene from Star Wars, but under the recent FAQ, I basically can't (with a few exceptions).

Here are all of the PFS-legal exceptions I can think of

1. A rakshasa bloodline sorcerer could pass off a charm person as an innocuous spell, but only if innocuous spellcasting was seen as otherwise harmless.
2. A 9th-level sandman bard.
3. A (presumably non-sandman) bard using the Spellsong feat.
4. Someone casting a spell with only somatic components (deaf oracles say hi) and the feat Secret Signs.
5. A Dawnflower Dissident, although to get charm person with this build you'd need to be a separatist cleric with the Charm domain (and thus to qualify for the prestige class you'll need another way to cadge scimitar proficiency), or a juju oracle (of Sarenrae...weird)

So there's five different ways where casting spells in front of onlookers without their knowledge is already legal in PFS. If the goal is to prevent covert casting, that catbag has sailed.

So let's talk Cunning Caster for a minute. It's a way to cast spells covertly, only it requires a successful Bluff against everybody in the room, and there are big penalties for using components of any kind. And let's also say that it's pretty obvious which character would be an optimized user of Cunning Caster: the mesmerist.

So here's a list of optimizations that a mesmerist gets to using Cunning Caster

a) Cha-based spellcasting, which gives a bonus on Bluff checks (and opposed Cha checks while using charm person)
b) a built-in bonus to Bluff checks
c) hypnotic stare, which gives a penalty to a target's Will saving throw (and possibly also Perception checks)
d) psychic spellcasting, which forgoes verbal and somatic components completely.

Suffice to say, they'd be good at it. So here's my arguments.

1. There are already a bunch of ways to covert cast. Cunning Caster doesn't stop those ways that are already out there.

2. Mesmerists do not have any other good options for covert spellcasting. All the other options (even Secret Signs) rely on classes or abilities that aren't the mesmerist. And don't forget: there's language in the hypnotic stare feature that prevents the stare's target from being aware the stare is happening. Why is that language even there, if there are no built-in class features or legal feats that can take advantage of that? What are they supposed to do: ~look into my eyes, yes, that's it, aren't my eyes very pretty?~

3. It's still two rolls. Let's say you're a barbarian, and you want to smash a bad guy's face with a hammer. So, roll to hit. Say you're a wizard, and there's something about the shape of that column finial that seems familiar. So, roll a knowledge check. Almost all of the things PCs want to do to affect their environment are one roll to do (or fail). There is a reason why using feint to sneak attack is such a bad idea. So you feint? Fine, you still have to roll to hit, with a 3/4 BaB class against a giant with a monster natural armor bonus anyway. Same with casting defensively: you don't do it unless you have to. Nobody likes those odds. I'd say the only saving grace of phantasmal killer is that the effect of its target failing the two saving throws is so powerful: they die. No other spell with two rolls would possibly be worth it.

4. I got one more: telempathic projection, charm person's psychic kid brother. How is this spell even usable unless you can cast it on the sly? Even with the no-save ability, unless you covert cast you're going to instantly bring your target to a hostile attitude if they see you casting. What's a +5 bonus going to do when you've effectively just flipped the table?

So, I'm all done. Maybe Cunning Caster will be made legal, or maybe we just get to wait for Ultimate Intrigue. Or maybe we get to wait for Ultimate Intrigue to find an updated version of Cunning Caster that's also PFS-banned. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Nohwear]

I do have to wonder if they are banned for the same reasons that the second paragraph of the Hunter archetype is ignored. I do not wish to discourage you, but I feel that you need to address why these feats do not require a lot of GM interpretation on what they actually do. The other reason that I can think of as to why they are banned is because they might allow players to end fights before they begin.

[Belafon]

Please check this thread as well.

[Jessex]

Most obvious slam dunk of a banning I think I've ever seen. I really am stunned that anyone even tried to argue against it.

[ohako]

@Nohwear That paragraph in the ubran hunter archetype is really strange

a) I don't know if this matters, but swans and camels are vicious bastard animals. I don't really understand how an urban hunter can make one of those look non-threatening. Maybe hairstyling? The right mouthwash?

So, a bystander watches someone's pet swan bite someone's head off.

b) an urban hunter can 'calm' the bystander with a Handle Animal check? they're not an animal, how does that work? the hunter rubs menthol on the bystander's tummy?
c) what does it mean to 'calm' someone, anyway? Like, does the swan have maximum ranks in Intimidate and the Dreadful Carnage feat and the hunter needs to keep everyone calm?
d) What about that hunter's tiefling witch/barbarian buddy cackling and evil eyeing all those bar mooks? How would you calm someone who saw that?

@Kevin yeah, I saw that thread. a) the banhammer (and the thread) predate the recent 'all spells are shiny' FAQ, and b) I figure I'd actually put forth the concise argument that was asked for.

[BigNorseWolf]

Been hit in the head by a swan that I was trying to untangle from some fishing line. People don't believe me when i say most people don't hit that hard.

[Jessex]

My brother has a rather large scar caused by a goose attack.

[theshoveller]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Been hit in the head by a swan that I was trying to untangle from some fishing line. People don't believe me when i say most people don't hit that hard.

I believe it is traditional to say "some of them can break a man's arm" at this juncture.

To drag us back onto topic: is the argument against simply that it will increase table variation, or is there more to it?

[Ascalaphus]

At the time of banning, there was still a lot of confusion, which the recent FAQ somewhat cleared up. That was one reason.

Another was a concern about power; particularly about pre-buffing while keeping an NPC talking.

My (slim) hope is that Ultimate Intrigue will feature another feat to do basically this, but adapted to be more sensitive to these concerns.