Hm. If there are official rules on this, I don't think I've ever seen them. As written, I don't think that Still or Silent Spell actually make it harder to identify a spell at all.
That said, at my table, I would definitely bump up the DC of the Spellcraft check (probably by 4-ish for each feat involved), maybe even add in a Perception or Sense Motive check to figure out who's casting the spell at all. Did you see the sparkly lights by their eyes, or notice their intense concentration? Good for you, here's your Spellcraft. As for psychic casting, I wanna say that unless they've invested in the feats, probably thought and emotion make for fairly obvious indicators of a person at least doing something weird, if not necessarily indicating spellcasting to the uninformed.
As Diego said, there are official rules on it, recently published in ultimate intrigue. Isnt a totally popular book, so some folks havent heard about them yet.
basically, stuff happens around you when you cast. glowing lights, swirly stuff, your body pulses, whatever. more than you can just still/silent away.
Basically, all spells have a visual accompanying them.
|
Basically, all spells have a visual accompanying them.
Not necessarily "visual" - noticeable. It's fine to describe some spells as "I felt a disturbance in the Force".
The choice of aesthetics is not entirely impact-free; if it's all about visuals, the spellcraft around corners becomes problematic. I prefer the "Force" aesthetic myself because it gets you around all those questions even when there's Silence and Obscuring Mist.
Not to mention if there are visible effects popping up, it would make locating invisible casters much more easy.
Not necessarily. Just because their are visuals doesn't mean they have to be centered on the caster. They might be centered on the target, flashes of light in the sky, or anything else that is clear that spell casting taking place, but neutral as to its source.
|
Paizo apparently wants to guarantee that the casters, like the martials, will veto any stealth or intrigue based solutions to problems, leaving the poor rogue out in the cold. He used to be able to count on the Bard and Inquisitor and sometimes even the wizard to support him, but no longer.
I think that it is more "Paizo developers don't want the spellcasters to do all the stealth or intrigue based solutions", so they have reduced the power of spells when used in social situations.
Charming and suggesting the local baron during a banquet don't work so well if everyone present notice that you are casting some spell.
I would rule that you would have to make a sense motive or perception roll, depending on the method of stealthy spell delivery, to realize that ..something.. is up. IF you succeeded in that, then you could roll your Spellcraft check to try and determine just what went on.
I suppose someone with sufficient resources could have servitors whose sole job is to continuously detect and identify any magic cast or active in their presence, who might well notice the magic without recognizing the source. They might then be able to track the magic back to its source. I'm not sure how that would work, but if a Spellcraft roll could determine who made a magic item, this should be possible.
Hope that helps.
Oops, forgot to include this. Sufficient security planning and procedures Really should make life harder for the stealthy and tricksy. Otherwise why do it. Just like the many countermeasures available to thwart casters, or to make martial options less relevant. Depending on how granular you are willing to play this, it could be a real pain. I think that a generic modifier based on the level of security might be easier to deal with. Has this already been been written and done?
I would rule that you would have to make a sense motive or perception roll, depending on the method of stealthy spell delivery, to realize that ..something.. is up. IF you succeeded in that, then you could roll your Spellcraft check to try and determine just what went on.
Ultimate Intrigue came out with a feat that allows you to try to cast without anyone noticing. People pretty much have to do what you're describing to know you're casting.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/conceal-spell
Guy w/ Face,
Perfect, did they come up with how you would handle security based countermeasures? I suppose all you really would need would be to stat out the perception abilities of the guards.
|
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
Spellcraft is tied to Perception. If the caster is invisible, I'd add the +20 to the Spellcraft check listed on the Perception DC Modifier table. If you can't see the caster but there is a somatic component that's perceivable, you should be able to make a check. If the caster is hidden and silent, well good luck.
Guy w/ Face,
Perfect, did they come up with how you would handle security based countermeasures? I suppose all you really would need would be to stat out the perception abilities of the guards.
Could you give me a list of countermeasures? That would make it easier for me to try to find ways to bypass them.
Yes, if the GM decides to max every guard's perception you'll probably have some issues. However, if the GM decides that every guard has its maximum possible perception then you have an entirely different problem that needs to be taken care of first (in my opinion).
Regarding Invisibility,
This is a Baron's feast, meant to make him look good. Even the most basic security precautions would include Invisibility Alarms, etc. Casters are OP only if no one takes any precautions against them, just like any other class.
As to a full list of possible countermeasures.
Has your DM done me bad, that I must rain on his parade?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making guards put some effort into Perception isn't that outlandish. It's one of the prime skills needed to do their job after all.
As for design intent, I think it was equal parts fumbling along the implications of rules as they already were ("spellcraft doesn't mention penalties if you can't see some components, so apparently you don't need to see components to do it") and a desire not to make people total sitting ducks for psychic spellcasters (who don't have visible components anyway). Clutching to the idea that there was something else than components that made spellcasting (and SLAs) noticeable enough to provide AoOs seemed a good idea then.
|
|
You can hide the evidence of spells you cast.
Prerequisites: Deceitful, Bluff 1 rank, Disguise 1 rank,
Sleight of Hand 1 rank.
Benefit: When you cast a spell or use a spell-like ability,
you can attempt to conceal verbal and somatic components
among other speech and gestures, and to conceal the
manifestation of casting the spell, so others don’t realize
you’re casting a spell or using a spell-like ability until
it is too late. The attempt to hide the spell slows your
casting slightly, such that spells that normally take a
standard action to cast now take a full-round action, and
spells that normally take longer than a standard action
take twice as long. (Swift action spells still take a swift
action.) To discover your ruse, a creature must succeed
at a Perception, Sense Motive, or Spellcraft check (the
creature receives an automatic check with whichever of
those skills has the highest bonus) against a the creature gains a
bonus on its check equal to the level of the spell or spell-
like ability you are concealing.If your spell has a somatic component, any creature
that can see you receives a Perception or Spellcraft check
(whichever has the highest bonus) against a DC equal to 15
+ your number of ranks in Sleight of Hand + your Dexterity
modifier; the creature gains a bonus on its check equal to
the level of the spell or spell-like ability you are concealing.Since you are concealing the spell’s manifestation
through other actions, others observing you realize you’re
doing something, even if they don’t realize you’re casting
a spell. If there is a verbal component, they still hear your
loud, clear voice but don’t notice the spell woven within.
If an opponent fails its check, your casting also does not
provoke attacks of opportunity, and an opponent that
fails its check can’t use readied actions that depend on
realizing that you’re casting a spell or using a spell-like
ability, or readied actions such as counterspelling that
require identifying the spell you’re casting. Spells such as
fireball that create an additional obvious effect (aside from
the manifestation of casting that all spells and spell-like
abilities share) still create that effect, though it might not
be obvious who cast the spell unless it emanates from you.If a character interacts with you long enough to attempt
a Sense Motive check without realizing you have been
casting spells, that character can use Sense Motive to gain
a hunch that you’re behaving unusually.
It's a lot of text, but one of the key points is that there is a cap on how high you can ramp up the DC here. It counts skill ranks, not skill bonus, so you can't ramp up the odd bonuses to make an impossible DC. Although that DC starts out fairly high and just keeps going up.
I will never understand why people never fix the line breaks of quoted text. It sure makes for a lot less scrolling
You can hide the evidence of spells you cast.
Prerequisites: Deceitful, Bluff 1 rank, Disguise 1 rank, Sleight of Hand 1 rank.
Benefit: When you cast a spell or use a spell-like ability, you can attempt to conceal verbal and somatic components among other speech and gestures, and to conceal the manifestation of casting the spell, so others don’t realize you’re casting a spell or using a spell-like ability until it is too late. The attempt to hide the spell slows your casting slightly, such that spells that normally take a standard action to cast now take a full-round action, and spells that normally take longer than a standard action take twice as long. (Swift action spells still take a swift action.) To discover your ruse, a creature must succeed at a Perception, Sense Motive, or Spellcraft check (the creature receives an automatic check with whichever of those skills has the highest bonus) against a the creature gains a bonus on its check equal to the level of the spell or spell-like ability you are concealing.If your spell has a somatic component, any creature that can see you receives a Perception or Spellcraft check (whichever has the highest bonus) against a DC equal to 15 + your number of ranks in Sleight of Hand + your Dexterity modifier; the creature gains a bonus on its check equal to the level of the spell or spell-like ability you are concealing.
Since you are concealing the spell’s manifestation through other actions, others observing you realize you’re doing something, even if they don’t realize you’re casting a spell. If there is a verbal component, they still hear your loud, clear voice but don’t notice the spell woven within. If an opponent fails its check, your casting also does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and an opponent that
fails its check can’t use readied actions that depend on realizing that you’re casting a spell or using a spell-like ability, or readied actions such as counterspelling that require identifying the spell you’re casting. Spells such as fireball that create an additional obvious effect (aside from the manifestation of casting that all spells and spell-like abilities share) still create that effect, though it might not be obvious who cast the spell unless it emanates from you. If a character interacts with you long enough to attempt a Sense Motive check without realizing you have been casting spells, that character can use Sense Motive to gain a hunch that you’re behaving unusually.It's a lot of text, but one of the key points is that there is a cap on how high you can ramp up the DC here. It counts skill ranks, not skill bonus, so you can't ramp up the odd bonuses to make an impossible DC. Although that DC starts out fairly high and just keeps going up.
If your GM allows paperback supplements, there's also Cunning Caster from Heroes of the Streets. It's not quite so limited when it comes to DCs.
Whether a smuggler or spy, you’ve learned to use misdirection and legerdemain to conceal your own magical abilities.
Prerequisites: Deceitful, ability to cast 1st-level spells.
Benefit: 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 penalties can be quite stiff, but they can be easily mitigated with Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials; or by using psychic magic or spell-like abilities.
|
|
I will never understand why people never fix the line breaks of quoted text. It sure makes for a lot less scrolling
1) Laziness
2) There's an optimal text width for pleasant reading, which is not "as wide screen as possible". Not quite as narrow as a column copy-paste either, but maybe slightly closer to it. You see the same effect in newspapers.Anyway, regarding Conceal Spell vs. Cunning Caster. These two feats were published shortly after each other so I suspect two different writers were working their way towards the same idea, fueled by a need brought on by occult casters to settle this question.
From a game design perspective I think Conceal Spell is the more cautious design. Although Cunning Caster has some steep penalties in theory, none of them apply to occult casters. Meanwhile, it's relatively easy to get a very high bonus on skills; a Mulberry Pentacle Ioun Stone can give you a +5 competence bonus for example, and a gossiper's gourd another +5 insight. The Innocence spell could arguably give you a +10 competence bonus on bluff checks; you're trying to convince people you're "innocent" of casting Murderous Command. And let's remember that mesmerists get an untyped bonus equal to half their level on all Bluff checks.
For a player, Cunning Caster is probably nicer to have, your bonus will be much higher. For a GM trying to find a precarious balance where concealed casting can be used some of the time but not all of the time, I think Conceal Spell is a better choice.
I think it's telling that Cunning Caster isn't allowed in PFS, but Conceal Spell is.
Making guards put some effort into Perception isn't that outlandish. It's one of the prime skills needed to do their job after all.
As for design intent, I think it was equal parts fumbling along the implications of rules as they already were ("spellcraft doesn't mention penalties if you can't see some components, so apparently you don't need to see components to do it") and a desire not to make people total sitting ducks for psychic spellcasters (who don't have visible components anyway). Clutching to the idea that there was something else than components that made spellcasting (and SLAs) noticeable enough to provide AoOs seemed a good idea then.
The goal is fine, probably a good idea. But calling the implementation in Ultimate Intrigue "half baked" is an insult to delicious molten lava chocolate cake.