|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am wondering if there is any way to make it more difficult for enemies to be able to identify what spell you are casting.
Specifically concealing the fact that you are casting illusion/shadow spells.
There are of course the eschew materials, still spell and silent spell feats, but I was wondering if you could attempt a Bluff or Sleight of Hand check to throw off anyone attempting to identify your spells before they are cast. Or if there are any other feats, skills, traits, etc that allow you to fool people into thinking you are casting something other than you are.
For example...I want to cast 'Shadow Evocation' to mimic a 'Fireball', I know that the enemy has a caster in their midst who would likely identify my spell and warn his cohorts that it is an illusion, dramatically reducing my effectiveness. Can I attempt to make the enemy caster think I am casting a real fireball, or some other spell? If so, how?
Thanks
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
....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.
Fireball has a range of 400 feet plus 40 feet per level. If you're 400 feet away, the enemy caster's Spellcraft DC to ID your spell goes up by 40 (at +1 per 10 feet). I rarely see GMs enforce the penalties for distance on a Spellcraft roll.*
There's a bard feat that lets you conceal casting in a performance.
Cunning Caster lets you make a Bluff check, but it would require some investment in Cha/Bluff. Secret Signs does the same thing but with Sleight of Hand and only works on somatic-only spells.
Masked Intent gives you a +4 or +8 to the DC to identify your spells, but it takes two feats, an expensive ritual, and a bunch of weird backstory.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psychic casting has 0 somatic, verbal, and (non expensive) material components.
Which by the rules, has ZERO impact on spellcraft ID checks. Psychic magic still has the same sort of non-component manifesttions that divine and arcane magic evoke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, if somebody was trying to Spellcraft a Shadow Evocation spell, or similar illusion [shadow] spell that is pretending to be another spell, I would require them to make a Will save to disbelieve, using the DC of the spell. If they fail, they believe it to be the intended spell, but if they succeed, they recognize it as an illusion spell (and can therefore automatically disbelieve the spell effects).
Though, this isn't rules-founded. The only rules-strict way of doing this is effects like the Conceal Spell feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimate Intrigue and either Inner Sea Intrigue or Spymaster's Handbook had some feats and/or metamagic to make spell raft harder or fake a different spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rakshasa bloodline sorcerers add to the DC to identify their spells and can make someone who fails the check think it is a completely different spell. It looks to me as if this would work via Eldritch Heritage as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example...I want to cast 'Shadow Evocation' to mimic a 'Fireball', I know that the enemy has a caster in their midst who would likely identify my spell and warn his cohorts that it is an illusion, dramatically reducing my effectiveness. Can I attempt to make the enemy caster think I am casting a real fireball, or some other spell? If so, how?
Speaking is a free action. Not an immediate action. Even if the caster might be aware it is an illusion, he has no way to communicate that to his allies before it lands. I find this rule extremely important when the "monster identifier" rolls poorly in initiaive and cannot tell his allies what abilities to expect. I also give them their honest 6 seconds to convey what information they can in a turn; it gets enormously entertaining at high levels when fighting very complicated opponents.
Invisibility/stealth/breaking line of sight + silent metamagic makes spellcraft checks literally impossible. You can get rods if feats are an issue.
|
Less helpfully, there's a feat in Ultimate Magic called Spell Bluff. It raises the DC on Spellcraft checks to determine what spell you're casting by 4... but only if the person making the check is preparing to counterspell. It's probably only worth it if you expect to end up on spell duels often against abjurers.
Invisibility/stealth/breaking line of sight + silent metamagic makes spellcraft checks literally impossible. You can get rods if feats are an issue.Not with the "magic has manifestations" FAQ. Invisibility and total concealment will make it way harder, but not impossible.
It is still impossible according to many, including myself. Check this recent conversation on the topic.
Invisibility/stealth/breaking line of sight + silent metamagic makes spellcraft checks literally impossible. You can get rods if feats are an issue.Not with the "magic has manifestations" FAQ. Invisibility and total concealment will make it way harder, but not impossible.
Oh sweet Jesus this bloody FAQ.
They basically said "Spellcasting is noticeable, expect table variation". Spellcasting being noticeable does not mean that it will be noticed, simply that it can. The word manifestations is intentionally vague so that various interpretations can be made of it. God I am so freaking sick of hearin people whine about this FAQ.
I feel sorry for the fiction writers where they have spellcasting that's concealed, one book has a spell cast while invisible nothing seen until the spell breaks the Invisibility because it was an attack, another has a character quietly whisper a spell to keep a disguise a few feet away from someone and isn't noticed, and another has a villain kill someone in a crowd by concealing the casting by hiding his hand gestures in his robes and only one character sees it.
Cast where they can't see you.
Cast where they can't see you.
That defeats the purpose of invisibility to a large extent.
|
|
Some people seem to be interpreting 'manifestations' as:
Player: "I cast Fireball."
GM: "You light up like a Christmas tree while screaming in some arcane language as loud as you can, causing every creature within 1000 yards to notice you."
Player: "I cast invisibility on myself last round, remember?"
GM: "Ok, you are invisible...but there is a giant spotlight shining on the square you are standing in while you cast your fireball spell."
I consider manifestations to be more like:
Verbal components mean you have to speak a couple words...somatic means you have to make a few gestures...material means you better have your eye of newt handy.
If you are invisible and want to cast a spell with somatic components, your enemies cannot see you flailing your hands. If your spell has verbal components, they can hear you speaking them.
My original question was more along the lines of "If the known verbal component of a fireball spell involves speaking the word 'Haduken', is there a way that would allow me to cast my shadow evocation fireball by saying 'Haduken' so my enemies are less likely to know it is a shadow fireball instead of a real fireball?"
Spellcraft only works if you can see the spell being cast. You cannot use spellcraft with hearing. If you are blind, you cannot use spellcraft to identify spells at all.
|
|
Except the part where people notice you are casting even if the casting take place without material, somatic or verbal component.
In any game I have ever been in, a spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components cannot be detected until it resolves (and not even always then, if the spell does not have obvious effects). The caster is standing still, not making any noise, and not using any materials to give away their casting. How exactly is someone detecting a spell being cast in those circumstances?
Unless there is some rule somewhere that specifically states that a caster is always noticed, even when using still spell, silent spell, and eschew materials. If there is I would love to see it.
Manifestations are now a thing. See the invisible castervthread
Except the part where people notice you are casting even if the casting take place without material, somatic or verbal component.In any game I have ever been in, a spell with no verbal, somatic, or material components cannot be detected until it resolves (and not even always then, if the spell does not have obvious effects). The caster is standing still, not making any noise, and not using any materials to give away their casting. How exactly is someone detecting a spell being cast in those circumstances?
Unless there is some rule somewhere that specifically states that a caster is always noticed, even when using still spell, silent spell, and eschew materials. If there is I would love to see it.
It is the FAQ that says it. Nothing in the rulebook supports it because Paizo didn't elect to change the rule when they copied and pasted the 3.5 rules.
What they have to do now is decide how they work with regard to invisibility.
Personally I do see how it can be abusive if you are visible, but nobody noticed that you are doing magical things, but it also messes up certain scenarios.
More than likely I will come up with a houserule for visible creatures not using components for magic(to include SU's), and just let invisibility work like it always has.
Seeing the manifestations(if you can, not all manifestations are visible. It's a poor choice of word on Paizo's part) is not seeing the spell cast because they could literally be described as anything. Maybe my fireball creates snowflakes around me as I cast them because I rip heat from the air. Maybe it briefly turns my hair into non-damaging Fire.
Guess which one invisibilty hides. Both also wouldn't be identifiable by a Spellcraft check because, rules as written, you need to see the spell being cast, not the manifestations.
I feel sorry for the fiction writers where they have spellcasting that's concealed, one book has a spell cast while invisible nothing seen until the spell breaks the Invisibility because it was an attack, another has a character quietly whisper a spell to keep a disguise a few feet away from someone and isn't noticed, and another has a villain kill someone in a crowd by concealing the casting by hiding his hand gestures in his robes and only one character sees it.
I have yet to see this have a meaningful impact in Pathfinder Tales. Otherwise if your writing general fantasy fiction, it's asinine to the extreme to set as part of your writing standards, compliance with a GAME.