I'm sorry to say it but ALL spells come with some form of a signifier that alerts those around the caster as per decree from on high (i.e. the developers). If you want to remain unnoticed you'll need the Cunning Caster feat.
Personally, I dislike the rule but there you have it. If you're in PFS there's no way to change it but otherwise you might want to talk to your GM. Do note the rule exists to keep casters in check, which I do understand, so please don't try to take egregious advantage of your GM's generosity if he does give you the ok.
|
Is it possible to cast spells (psychic or otherwise) without alerting people? Yes and no.
Let's start by noting that if you have observable spell components those might give you away. Verbal components can be heard (and invisibility doesn't help against that), somatic components can be seen.
For a psychic caster, a spell-like ability or a spell without verbal and somatic components (say, due to metamagic), it gets a little trickier.
The "word from on high" is this FAQ. Some people hate it and they'll probably be along later in this thread to say how ridiculous it is. Let's just say that there are reasons why it exists such as Paizo expanding the game in the direction of Ultimate Intrigue (where inconspicuous spellcasting might be a big theme) and Occult Adventures (spellcasters that would have rather an easy time of casting mind-affecting spells on everyone if their casting was completely unnoticeable). So there were valid gameplay reasons for writing some rules on this subject, even if not everyone likes the outcome. Ultimately, the goal is that you cannot entirely take away an observer's chance of noticing spellcasting.
However, you can make it harder. The first step is to have a talk with the GM about what "manifestations" are like.
If they're visual, you can hide around a corner, breaking line of sight. If they cause a lightshow, you can hide in magical darkness. If they're sounds, you can use a Silence spell or rely on a lot of background noise, such as from a battle, to make it harder to notice. You could try to cover scents with heavy incense or smoke, and so forth.
If you play in an environment like PFS, there is a chance that not every GM will permit the same manifestations, so be prepared to handle different kinds.
Ultimately, the stated goal of the rule is to add an element of uncertainty to whether your spellcasting will be noticed. Feel free to improve your odds though.
It's entirely reasonable and thematic for the manifestation of a psychic spell that exists purely in the minds of the caster and the target to manifest in subtle ways, like "everybody nearby has a crawling feeling on the backs of their necks", "gets chills", "momentarily sees shadowy figures out of the corners of their eyes that aren't there when they turn to look".
The manifestations thing ought to give players considerable leeway in "what, specifically, their manifestations appear as" and if you're doing something subtle in your effect its reasonable to have the extent of the manifestations being to alert onlookers that somebody is up to something. If you're calling down lightning from the heavens, they should probably be able to tell it's you, but if if you're just messing with somebody's mind people people should probably not immediately know who's doing what to whom.
The real problem with Cunning Caster and Conceal Spell is the Deceitful tax. Pure casters can spare the feats, but people who want to cast and fight are in a bind.
There is currently no official answer on this issue. To quote the operative rules:
Action: 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.
So you do need to make a perception check to notice a spell that's being cast. The problem is, it's never been established what the perception check to see a spell actually is. The FAQ being discussed above doesn't address this problem, it merely establishes that you don't need to be trained in spellcraft to perceive that there is a spell being cast. There's a similar argument with respect to invisible spellcasters and whether that invisibility extends to their spells.
I'm generally of the opinion that Stealth and Invisibility do hide your spellcasting, on the basis that a spell should have the same concealment as the spellcaster. Invisibility and Stealth both grant total concealment, therefor any spell cast by the spellcaster has total concealment. Spellcasting is not an action that breaks stealth, so you can cast spells while maintaining stealth at no penalty.
The alternative ruling is that spells do not share the concealment of the spellcaster and a separate perception check is required for both spell and spellcaster. The observer makes two perception checks, one opposed by the stealth check of the caster and one against the perception DC to spot the spell (there is no rule for what this DC should be). The results are independent, potentially leading to situations where the observer spots the spell but not the spellcaster (seeing a magical effect with no obvious source) or where he spots the spellcaster but not the spell. I personally don't like this ruling, but given the current state of the FAQ it's a logically consistent ruling.
|
|
@Dasrak: I don't read that line in Spellcraft as needing a Perception check, but rather as saying that identifying a spell that you see being cast is subject to some modifiers for circumstances, the same as you'd use for a perception check made in the same circumstances.
For example: you take a +1 DC modifier on perception checks per 10ft something is away; so to identify a spell being cast by an enemy 30ft away from you you'd take a +3 DC on the check. If you're distracted because you're in the middle of a fight and there's also a nearby hulking monster trying to swallow you, the +5 DC for distraction would apply. But all those are modifiers to identifying the spell, if the spellcasting isn't being hidden you wouldn't need a perception check to see it.
---
Apart from that, I don't think Stealth and Invisibility should get precisely the same treatment here. Invisibility makes you invisible. Objects you pick up later do not become invisible. Arguably, the manifestations that come into existence when you start casting are not invisible because they're latecomers. (I know, this is controversial.)
If you were using some shrubbery to Stealth in however, those would also be helpful in concealing any spell manifestations as you cast.
If you were using some shrubbery to Stealth in however, those would also be helpful in concealing any spell manifestations as you cast.
Especially if you can find another shrubbery!
If you were using some shrubbery to Stealth in however, those would also be helpful in concealing any spell manifestations as you cast.Especially if you can find another shrubbery!
Meh. I'd rather cut down the mightiest tree in the forest...with a herring!