I'm setting up a one shot to run this weekend, and one of my encounters begins with perhaps a bit of a cheap move: Essentially, I have a multiclass cleric/monk who will start off hidden (I'm assuming that he'll have heard the commotion down the halls). The enemy has a rod of silencing, and will begin casting spells (it's not that high in cleric levels, so mostly think Doom/Bane or stuff like that, and maybe a self buff).
I plan to give them some ability to respond, with the classic "Roll a Will Save" and if they're canny enough they will start suspecting something's up, before the enemy gets to cast their buffs/debuffs/get a surprise round. However I was wondering, because I couldn't see it in the places I looked, would the targets know that they were affected by a spell, if they couldn't see/hear the caster? And, especially for Doom, which has an actual condition that applies, if the target failed, would they know that they are shaken?
I of course plan to say something along the lines of "You're not sure what, but something seemed to subtly unnerve you shortly after you entered this room" if for no other reason than to set the ambiance, but I can't seem to tell if the characters should know that there's a supernatural cause.
There’s an FAQ stating that all spellcasting has a perceivable manifestation, even when cast using silent and still, even for spells without verbal or somatic components to silence or still. I believe it’s a(n) (over)reaction to psionics although I could be mistaken. At any rate, for whatever reason, there is no casting spells on the sly in Pathfinder. If the caster can see the characters to target them, the characters can see magic is happening.
My search-fu is weak but I’m sure someone else will come along and link it for you if you have search-fu like mine.
Yep, casting a spell, even with NO components, is the equivalent of setting off fireworks. Everyone in line of sight always know the instant anyone casts a spell.
Ah, though it turns out there is a feat that can get around this, though it means a little re-tinkering with the build
Ah, though it turns out there is a feat that can get around this, though it means a little re-tinkering with the build
If you're the DM, then you don't have to switch much. If you have your feats already set, my suggestion, treat this as a pseudo-archetype and swap out one of the cleric's abilities for the feat. For instance, swap out a domain or something like that feat. Your NPC's don't have to be 100% PC legal after all.
Ah, though it turns out there is a feat that can get around this, though it means a little re-tinkering with the buildIf you're the DM, then you don't have to switch much. If you have your feats already set, my suggestion, treat this as a pseudo-archetype and swap out one of the cleric's abilities for the feat. For instance, swap out a domain or something like that feat. Your NPC's don't have to be 100% PC legal after all.
I know, and I'm not even close to a stickler for stuff like this usually, but I have a little bet going with a friend, on whether I can run a 100% RAW (or at least as much as can be) game and make it fun. We've been arguing for years about Pathfinder vs point buy games like GURPS and HERO (my personal favorite), and so he and I had a gentleman's wager on that topic. (And for the record, it's not that I think RAW PF, can't be fun, it's that for the work you put into it, I could put 50% less work into HERO, and have a game that is, at least for me, more fun. But alas, it involves basic arithmetic, so apparently that scares off enough players that I can't get a group.)
Your NPC's don't have to be 100% PC legal after all.
Warn your players at sign-up if this will be the case. Otherwise my character can't rely on his in-character knowledge about what is possible any more than I the player can rely on my rules knowledge about what is possible. I nor my character can deduce things based on presented evidence because my conclusions are likely invalid because NPCs can "just do that".
Your NPC's don't have to be 100% PC legal after all.Warn your players at sign-up if this will be the case. Otherwise my character can't rely on his in-character knowledge about what is possible any more than I the player can rely on my rules knowledge about what is possible. I nor my character can deduce things based on presented evidence because my conclusions are likely invalid because NPCs can "just do that".
That also depends entirely on how far "off" you go. Adding a single feat to an npc should not be noticed at all. Adding the advanced template is a little more noticable but still entirely acceptable. Changing a wizard to now cast divine spells is somewere beyond "too far."
Some middle ground somewhere near the bottom end is generally accepted as normal to cater to your specific group :)
Warn your players at sign-up if this will be the case.
I don't see the need to tell players I've customized some things as I suggested. Nothing there would change ANYTHING that would be "in-character knowledge about what is possible". As PC's don't see the NPC's sheets, they have NO reason to know if they gained a feat by level or class feature. With the feat already existing, it doesn't change PC expectations as the NPC could have it anyway.
For instance, do I have to tell the players I made some NPC archetypes for a secret society they don't know of? starting PC's often have no reason to know the ins and outs of the world.
Changing a wizard to now cast divine spells is somewere beyond "too far."
There are several archetypes that alter your type of spellcasting: you can cast psychic magic as a sorcerer/investigator or arcane from an alchemist. There are also several classes/archetypes that add wizard spells to a divine list. So it's questionable that you'd KNOW that it was a wizard, let alone it was a wizard with divine spells. As such, 'PC knowledge isn't affected.
I don't see the need to tell players I've customized some things as I suggested.
You may not need to list the specifics, but you DO need to let the players know that NPCs/Monsters won't be beholding to the rules. Especially if your campaign has been stated to be "Core Only" or "Core plus APG" or such.
Giving an NPC a feat that already exists isn't a huge deal, provided she otherwise qualifies.
For instance, do I have to tell the players I made some NPC archetypes for a secret society they don't know of?
A warning that NPCs may have non-standard archetypes might be in order, but specifics are unnecessary. However, you HAVE opened the doors for custom archetypes, so you may get players asking for them as well. A player may well ask for a version of the FoeHammer archetype that uses a dorn-dergar instead of a hammer, for example.
To the OP:
Even if a creature is completely unaware of the caster but succeeds in his save, while he might not become aware of the caster, he would be aware that something was attempted:
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.
"Core Only" or "Core plus APG" or such.
No worries on this front: I don't play in these kind of game as they hold no interest to me. In games I play, if something is off-limits it's because of performance [unexpectedly good or bad] or setting [like guns don't exist].
Giving an NPC a feat that already exists isn't a huge deal, provided she otherwise qualifies.
It's something 'under the hood' that the players would have no way of knowing. If it was REALLY a sticking point, I'd add a disposable item/mcguffin that granted the feat for the encounter.
A warning that NPCs may have non-standard archetypes might be in order, but specifics are unnecessary. However, you HAVE opened the doors for custom archetypes, so you may get players asking for them as well. A player may well ask for a version of the FoeHammer archetype that uses a dorn-dergar instead of a hammer, for example.
I don't really understand this. PC generally don't know the archetypes of NPC's so there would be no reason to mention it. In my games, they'd meet a dwarf 'fighting type NPC' not a dwarf with a sign over his head that says 'foehammer'. Guesses/know checks can give hints to abilities at best.
However, if someone asked about a "FoeHammer archetype that uses a dorn-dergar instead of a hammer", I'd say there was no need and point them to the new weapon mods: For 500gp, you can add a weapon to another weapon group.